Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-429_8o6a.pdf
Page Number: 19

16 

OKLAHOMA v. CASTRO-HUERTA 

Opinion of the Court 

question likewise did not matter much in Oklahoma.  Most 
everyone in Oklahoma previously understood that the State
included  almost  no  Indian  country.    McGirt,  590  U. S.,  at 
___–___  (ROBERTS,  C. J.,  dissenting)  (slip  op.,  at  31–32). 
But  after  McGirt,  about  43%  of  Oklahoma—including 
Tulsa—is  now  considered  Indian  country.  Therefore,  the 
question of whether the State of Oklahoma retains concur-
rent jurisdiction to prosecute non-Indian on Indian crimes
in  Indian  country  has  suddenly  assumed  immense  im-
portance.  The jurisdictional question has now been called.
In light of the newfound significance of the question, it is
necessary  and  appropriate  for  this  Court  to  take  its  first
hard look at the text and structure of the General Crimes 
Act, rather than relying on scattered dicta about a question
that,  until  now,  was  relatively  insignificant  in  the  real 
world. 

After  independently  examining  the  question,  we  have 
concluded  that  the  General  Crimes  Act  does  not  preempt
state  jurisdiction  over  crimes  committed  by  non-Indians 
against Indians in Indian country. 

2 

Castro-Huerta next invokes Public Law 280 as a source 

of preemption.  That argument is similarly unpersuasive.

Public Law 280 affirmatively grants certain States broad
jurisdiction to prosecute state-law offenses committed by or
against Indians in Indian country.  See 18 U. S. C. §1162.
(Other States may opt in, with tribal consent.  25 U. S. C. 
§1321.)  But Public Law 280 does not preempt any preexist-
ing or otherwise lawfully assumed jurisdiction that States
possess to prosecute crimes in Indian country.  Indeed, the 
Court has already concluded as much:  “Nothing in the lan-
guage or legislative history of Pub. L. 280 indicates that it 
was  meant  to  divest  States  of  pre-existing  and  otherwise 
lawfully  assumed  jurisdiction.”  Three  Affiliated  Tribes  of 
Fort Berthold Reservation v. Wold Engineering, P. C., 467