Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-429_8o6a.pdf
Page Number: 68.0

40 

OKLAHOMA v. CASTRO-HUERTA 

GORSUCH, J., dissenting 

their treaties appear to promise tribal freedom from state
criminal  jurisdiction  in  express  terms.  See,  e.g.,  Treaty
with  the  Navajo,  Art.  I,  June  1868,  15  Stat.  667 
(guaranteeing that those who commit crimes against tribal 
members  will  be  “arrested  and  punished  according  to  the
laws of the United States”).  Any analysis true to Bracker 
must take cognizance of all of this.  Any such analysis must
recognize, too, that the standards of preemption applicable 
“in other areas of the law” are “unhelpful” when it comes to 
Tribes.  Bracker,  448  U. S.,  at  143.    Instead,  courts  must 
proceed against the “ ‘backdrop’ ” of tribal sovereignty, ibid., 
with  an  “assumption  that  the  States  have  no  power  to
regulate  the  affairs  of  Indians  on  a  reservation”  or  other 
tribal lands, Williams, 358 U. S., at 219–220.  To overcome 
that backdrop assumption, a clear congressional statement 
is  required  and  any  ambiguities  must  be  “construed 
generously”  in  favor  of  the  Tribes.  Bracker,  448  U. S.,  at 
143–144; see also Cotton Petroleum, 490 U. S., at 177–178. 
The  Court  today  may  ignore  a  clear  jurisdictional  rule 
prescribed by statute and choose to apply its own balancing 
test instead.  The Court may misapply that balancing test 
in an effort to address one State’s professed “law and order” 
concerns. 
In  the  process,  the  Court  may  even  risk
unsettling  longstanding  and  clear  jurisdictional  rules
nationwide.  But  in  the  end,  any  faithful  application  of 
Bracker to other Tribes in other States should only confirm 
the soundness of the traditional rule that state authorities 
may  not  try  crimes  like  this  one  absent  congressional
authorization.10 

—————— 

10 In a final drive-by flourish, the Court asserts that its “jurisdictional
holding[s]” today apply “throughout the United States.”  For emphasis,
the Court repeats the point in a footnote.  Ante, at 24, n. 8, 25.  But not 
only does the Court acknowledge that Congress may preempt state juris-
diction over crimes like this one.  See ante, at 6.  The truth is, in this case 
involving one Tribe in one State the Court does not purport to evaluate