Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-429_8o6a.pdf
Page Number: 24

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

21 

Opinion of the Court 

IV 

The  dissent  emphasizes  the  history  of  mistreatment  of 
American  Indians.  But  that  history  does  not  resolve  the 
legal questions presented in this case.  Those questions are:
(i) whether  Indian  country  is  part  of  a  State or  instead  is
separate  and  independent  from  a  State;  and  (ii) if  Indian
country is part of a State, whether the State has concurrent
jurisdiction  with  the  Federal  Government  to  prosecute
crimes committed by non-Indians against Indians in Indian 
country.

The answers to those questions are straightforward.  On 
the  first  question,  as  explained  above,  this  Court  has  re-
peatedly  ruled  that  Indian  country  is  part  of  a  State,  not 
separate from a State.  By contrast, the dissent lifts up the 
1832 decision in Worcester v. Georgia as a proper exposition
of  Indian  law.  But  this  Court  long  ago  made  clear  that 
Worcester rested on a mistaken understanding of the rela-
tionship between Indian country and the States.  The Court 
has stated that the “general notion drawn from Chief Jus-
tice Marshall’s opinion in Worcester v. Georgia” “has yielded 
to  closer  analysis”:  “By  1880  the  Court  no  longer  viewed
reservations  as  distinct  nations.  On  the  contrary,  it  was 
said that a reservation was in many cases a part of the sur-
rounding State or Territory, and subject to its jurisdiction
except as forbidden by federal law.”  Organized Village of 
Kake, 369 U. S., at 72. 

Because  Indian  country  is  part  of  a  State,  not  separate 

—————— 
the Civil War, 9 Am. Indian Q. 4, 385, 388 (1985); 1 F. Cohen, Handbook 
of  Federal  Indian  Law  §4.07(1)(a),  p.  289  (2012);  see  McGirt  v.  Okla-
homa, 591 U. S. ___, ___−___ (2020) (ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting) (slip op., 
at 3−4); Cherokee Nation v. Nash, 267 F. Supp. 3d 86, 89−90 (DC 2017).
In  any  event,  it  is  not  evident  why  the  pre-Civil  War  history  of  tribal
discord with States—unconnected from any statutory text—should disa-
ble States from exercising jurisdiction in 2022 to ensure that crime vic-
tims in state territory are protected under the State’s laws.