Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-429_8o6a.pdf
Page Number: 60.0

32 

OKLAHOMA v. CASTRO-HUERTA 

GORSUCH, J., dissenting 

vehicle taxes.  Id., at 145–146, 148.  Here, Congress has not 
only  pervasively  regulated  criminal  jurisdiction  in  Indian 
country, it has spoken to the very situation we face:  States 
like Oklahoma may exercise jurisdiction over crimes within 
tribal  boundaries  by  or  against  tribal  members  only  with
tribal consent. 

The  simple  truth  is  Bracker  supplies  zero  authority  for 
this Court’s course today.  If Congress has not always “been 
specific  about  the  allocation  of  civil  jurisdiction  in  Indian
country,” the same can hardly be said about the allocation 
of criminal authority.  Cohen 527.  Congress “has provided
a nearly comprehensive set of statutes allocating criminal
jurisdiction.” 
Ibid.    In  doing  so,  Congress  has  already
“balanced” competing tribal, state, and federal interests—
and its balance demands tribal consent.  Exactly nothing in 
Bracker permits us to ignore Congress’s directive. 

B 

Plainly,  the  Court’s  balancing-test  game  is  not  one  we 
should be playing in this case.  But what if we did?  Suppose 
this  Court  could  (somehow)  ignore  Congress’s  decision  to 
allow States like Oklahoma to exercise criminal jurisdiction
in  cases  like  ours  only  with  tribal  consent.    Suppose  we
could  (somehow)  replace  that  rule  with  one  of  our  own 
creation.  Even proceeding on that stunning premise, it is
far  from  obvious  how  the  Court  arrives  at  its  preferred
result. 

In  reweighing  competing  state  and  tribal  interests  for 
itself,  the  Court  stresses  two  points.    First,  the  Court 
suggests  that  its  balance  is  designed  to  “help”  Native 
Americans.  Ante, at 20 (suggesting that Indians would be
“second-class  citizens”  without  this  Court’s  intervention);
Tr. of Oral Arg. 66 (suggesting state jurisdiction is designed 
to  “help”  tribal  members).  Second,  the  Court  says  state 
jurisdiction  is  needed  on  the  Cherokee  Reservation  today 
because  “in  the  wake  of  McGirt”  some  defendants  “have