Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-429_8o6a.pdf
Page Number: 1

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2021 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is 
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued. 
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been 
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

OKLAHOMA v. CASTRO-HUERTA 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF 
OKLAHOMA 

No. 21–429.  Argued April 27, 2022—Decided June 29, 2022 

In  2015,  respondent  Victor  Manuel  Castro-Huerta  was  charged  by  the 
State of Oklahoma for child neglect.  Castro-Huerta was convicted in 
state court and sentenced to 35 years of imprisonment.  While Castro-
Huerta’s state-court appeal was pending, this Court decided McGirt v. 
Oklahoma, 591 U. S. ___.  There, the Court held that the Creek Na-
tion’s reservation in eastern Oklahoma had never been properly dises-
tablished  and  therefore  remained  “Indian  country.”    Id.,  at  ___.  In 
light of McGirt, the eastern part of Oklahoma, including Tulsa, is rec-
ognized  as  Indian  country.    Following  this  development,  Castro-
Huerta argued that the Federal Government had exclusive jurisdiction
to prosecute him (a non-Indian) for a crime committed against his step-
daughter (a Cherokee Indian) in Tulsa (Indian country), and that the 
State therefore lacked jurisdiction to prosecute him.  The Oklahoma 
Court  of  Criminal  Appeals  agreed  and  vacated  his  conviction.    This 
Court granted certiorari to determine the extent of a State’s jurisdic-
tion to prosecute crimes committed by non-Indians against Indians in
Indian country. 

Held: The Federal Government and the State have concurrent jurisdic-
tion to prosecute crimes committed by non-Indians against Indians in
Indian country.  Pp. 4–25.

(a) The jurisdictional dispute in this case arises because Oklahoma’s
territory includes Indian country.  In the early Republic, the Federal 
Government sometimes treated Indian country as separate from state 
territory.  See Worcester v. Georgia, 6 Pet. 515.  But that view has long 
since been abandoned. Organized Village of Kake v. Egan, 369 U. S. 
60, 72.  And the Court has specifically held that States have jurisdic-
tion to prosecute crimes committed by non-Indians against non-Indi-
ans in Indian country.  United States v. McBratney, 104 U. S. 621; see