Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-429_8o6a.pdf
Page Number: 28.0

Cite as:  597 U. S. ____ (2022) 

25 

Opinion of the Court 

the State’s authority to prosecute; that no principle of tribal 
self-government  preempts  the  State’s  authority  to  prose-
cute; that the cited treaties do not preempt Oklahoma’s au-
thority to prosecute; and that the Oklahoma Enabling Act 
does  not  preempt  Oklahoma’s  authority  to  prosecute  (in-
deed, it solidifies the State’s presumptive sovereign author-
ity to prosecute).  Comments in the dissenting opinion sug-
gesting  anything  otherwise  “are  just  that:  comments  in  a 
dissenting opinion.”  Railroad Retirement Bd. v. Fritz, 449 
U. S. 166, 177, n. 10 (1980). 

From  start  to  finish,  the  dissent  employs  extraordinary
rhetoric  in  articulating  its  deeply  held  policy  views  about 
what Indian law should be.  The dissent goes so far as to 
draft  a  proposed  statute  for  Congress.    But  this  Court’s 
proper role under Article III of the Constitution is to declare
what the law is, not what we think the law should be.  The 
dissent’s views about the jurisdictional question presented
in this case are contrary to this Court’s precedents and to
the laws enacted by Congress. 

* 

* 

* 
We conclude that the Federal Government and the State 
have concurrent jurisdiction to prosecute crimes committed
by  non-Indians  against  Indians  in  Indian  country.  We 
therefore  reverse  the  judgment  of  the  Oklahoma  Court  of 
Criminal Appeals and remand the case for further proceed-
ings not inconsistent with this opinion. 

It is so ordered.