Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-429_8o6a.pdf
Page Number: 16.0

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

13 

Opinion of the Court 

Congress has never enacted new legislation that would ren-
der federal jurisdiction exclusive or preempt state jurisdic-
tion over crimes committed by non-Indians in Indian coun-
try.  Additionally,  in  1979,  the  Office  of  Legal  Counsel 
stated that this Court had not resolved the specific issue of
state  jurisdiction  over  crimes  committed  by  non-Indians 
against Indians in Indian country, and that the issue was
not settled.  3 Op. OLC 111, 117–119 (1979).  Yet Congress
still did not act to make federal jurisdiction exclusive or to 
preempt state jurisdiction.

On a different tack, Castro-Huerta invokes the reenact-
ment canon.  Castro-Huerta points out that, in 1948, Con-
gress recodified the General Crimes Act.  Two years before
that recodification, this Court suggested in dicta that States
lack  jurisdiction  over  crimes  committed  by  non-Indians 
against Indians in Indian country.  See Williams v. United 
States, 327 U. S. 711, 714 (1946).  Castro-Huerta contends 
that the 1948 Congress therefore intended to ratify the Wil-
liams dicta. 

Castro-Huerta’s  reenactment-canon  argument  is  mis-
placed.  First of all, the reenactment canon does not over-
ride  clear  statutory  language  of  the  kind  present  in  the 
General Crimes Act.  See BP p.l.c. v. Mayor and City Coun-
cil of Baltimore, 593 U. S. ___, ___ (2021) (slip op., at 11).
In addition, the canon does not apply to dicta.  See Jama v. 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 543 U. S. 335, 349, 
351, n. 12 (2005).  The Court’s statements in Williams were 
pure dicta.  Indeed, the Williams dicta did not even purport 
to interpret the text of the General Crimes Act.  Dicta that 
does not analyze the relevant statutory provision cannot be
said to have resolved the statute’s meaning.  Moreover, any 
inference from Congress’s 1948 recodification is especially
weak  because  that  recodification  was  not  specific  to  the
General Crimes Act, but instead was simply a general re-
codification of all federal criminal laws.  This Court has pre-