Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-429_8o6a.pdf
Page Number: 57.0

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

29 

GORSUCH, J., dissenting 

decisions out of the galaxy of this Court’s Indian law juris-
prudence.  Ante, at 5–6.  But this collection of cases is no 
more at fault for the Court’s decision than the last.  Orga-
nized  Village  of  Kake  v.  Egan—which  the  Court  seems  to 
think is some magic bullet, see ante, at 5, 14, n. 2, 21, 22– 
24—addressed the prosaic question whether Alaska could 
apply  its  fishing  laws  on  lands  owned  by  a  native  Alaska
tribal corporation.  369 U. S. 60, 61–63 (1962); see also n. 5, 
supra.    Subsequently,  the  Court  cabined  that  case  to  cir-
cumstances  “dealing  with  Indians  who  have  left  or  never 
inhabited  reservations  set  aside  for  their  exclusive  use  or 
who do not possess the usual accoutrements of tribal self-
government.”  McClanahan, 411 U. S., at 167–168.  Mean-
while, New York ex rel. Cutler v. Dibble allowed New York 
to use civil proceedings to eject non-Indian trespassers on 
Indian  lands.  21  How.  366,  369–371  (1859).    In  Surplus 
Trading Co. v. Cook, the crime at issue did not take place
on  tribal  lands  but  on  a  “supply  station  of  the  United
States”  sold  by  Arkansas  to  the  federal  government.    281 
U. S. 647, 649 (1930).  In New York ex rel. Ray v. Martin, 
this  Court  merely  reaffirmed  McBratney  and  held  that 
States could exercise jurisdiction over crimes involving only
non-Indians.  326 U. S. 496, 499–500 (1946).  Both County 
of Yakima v. Confederated Tribes and Bands of Yakima Na-
tion and Nevada v. Hicks issued holdings about state civil
jurisdiction, not criminal jurisdiction striking at the heart
of  tribal  sovereignty.  See  502  U. S.  251,  256–258,  270 
(1992); 533 U. S. 353, 361, 363, 374 (2001). 

In  the  end,  the  Court  cannot  fault  our  predecessors  for
today’s  decision.    The blame  belongs  only  with  this  Court 
here and now.  Standing before us is a mountain of statutes
and precedents making plain that Oklahoma possesses no
authority  to  prosecute  crimes  against  tribal  members  on 
tribal reservations until it amends its laws and wins tribal 
consent.  This Court may choose to ignore Congress’s stat-
utes and the Nation’s treaties, but it has no power to negate