Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-429_8o6a.pdf
Page Number: 27.0

24 

OKLAHOMA v. CASTRO-HUERTA 

Opinion of the Court 

state  enabling  acts  not  to  displace  state  jurisdiction.  See 
id., at 243–247; Organized Village of Kake, 369 U. S., at 67– 
71.  In Organized Village of Kake, the Court specifically ad-
dressed  several  state  enabling  acts,  including  the  Okla-
homa Enabling Act, and stated that statutory language re-
serving  jurisdiction  and  control  to  the  United  States  was 
meant to preserve federal jurisdiction to the extent that it
existed  before  statehood,  not  to  make  federal  jurisdiction
exclusive.  Id., at 67–70.  Consistent with that precedent,
today’s  decision  recognizes  that  the  Federal  Government
and the State have concurrent jurisdiction over crimes com-
mitted by non-Indians against Indians in Indian country.9 
The dissent incorrectly seeks to characterize various as-
pects of the Court’s decision as dicta.  To be clear, the Court 
today holds that Indian country within a State’s territory is
part  of  a  State,  not  separate  from  a  State.  Therefore,  a 
State has jurisdiction to prosecute crimes committed in In-
dian country unless state jurisdiction is preempted.  With 
respect  to  crimes  committed  by  non-Indians  against  Indi-
ans in Indian country, the Court today further holds that
the  General  Crimes  Act  does  not  preempt  the  State’s  au-
thority to prosecute; that Public Law 280 does not preempt 

—————— 

9 The dissent characterizes the Court’s opinion in several ways that are 
not  accurate.    Post,  at  38−41.   For  example,  the  dissent  suggests  that 
States may not exercise jurisdiction over crimes committed by Indians
against  non-Indians  in  Indian  country—the  reverse  of  the  scenario  in 
this case.  To reiterate, we do not take a position on that question.  See 
supra, at 19, n. 6. 

The dissent also hints that the jurisdictional holding of the Court in 
this case may apply only in Oklahoma.  That is incorrect.  The Court’s 
holding is an interpretation of federal law, which applies throughout the
United  States:    Unless  preempted,  States  may  exercise  jurisdiction  to 
prosecute  crimes  committed  by  non-Indians  against  Indians  in  Indian 
country.

Finally, the statutory definition of Indian country includes “all Indian
allotments, the Indian titles to which have not been extinguished.”  See 
18 U. S. C. §1151.  Therefore, States may prosecute crimes committed by
non-Indians against Indians in those allotments.