Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-429_8o6a.pdf
Page Number: 7.0

4 

OKLAHOMA v. CASTRO-HUERTA 

Opinion of the Court 

sentences in plea deals negotiated with the Federal Govern-
ment.  Others have simply gone free.  Going forward, the 
State  estimates  that  it  will  have  to  transfer  prosecutorial
responsibility  for  more  than  18,000  cases  per  year  to  the
Federal and Tribal Governments.  All of this has created a 
significant  challenge  for  the  Federal  Government  and  for 
the people of Oklahoma.  At the end of fiscal year 2021, the
U. S. Department of Justice was opening only 22% and 31% 
of all felony referrals in the Eastern and Northern Districts
of Oklahoma.  Dept. of Justice, U. S. Attorneys, Fiscal Year 
2023 Congressional Justification 46.  And the Department 
recently acknowledged that “many people may not be held 
accountable for their criminal conduct due to resource con-
straints.”  Ibid. 

In  light  of  the  sudden  significance  of  this  jurisdictional 
question for public safety and the criminal justice system in 
Oklahoma, this Court granted certiorari to decide whether 
a State has concurrent jurisdiction with the Federal Gov-
ernment  to  prosecute  crimes  committed  by  non-Indians 
against Indians in Indian country.  595 U. S. ___ (2022).1 

II 
The jurisdictional dispute in this case arises because Ok-
lahoma’s territory includes Indian country.  Federal law de-
fines “Indian country” to include, among other things, “all 
land within the limits of any Indian reservation under the 
jurisdiction of the United States Government.”  18 U. S. C. 
§1151.

To begin with, the Constitution allows a State to exercise
jurisdiction in Indian country.  Indian country is part of the
State, not separate from the State.  To be sure, under this 
Court’s precedents, federal law may preempt that state ju-
risdiction  in  certain  circumstances.    But  otherwise,  as  a 

—————— 

1 Both the United States and the Cherokee Nation, along with several
other Tribes, filed amicus briefs in this case articulating their views on 
the legal questions before the Court.