Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-429_8o6a.pdf
Page Number: 3.0

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

3 

Syllabus 

18 U. S. C. §1162; 25 U. S. C. §1321.  Castro-Huerta contends that the 
law’s  enactment  in  1953  would  have  been  pointless  surplusage  if 
States already had concurrent jurisdiction over crimes committed by 
non-Indians against Indians in Indian country.  But Public Law 280 
contains no language preempting state jurisdiction.  And Public Law 
280  encompasses  far  more  than  just  non-Indian  on  Indian  crimes. 
Thus, resolution of the narrow jurisdictional issue here does not negate 
the significance of Public Law 280.  Pp. 16–18.

(2) The  test  articulated  in  White  Mountain  Apache  Tribe  v. 
Bracker, 448 U. S. 136, does not bar the State from prosecuting crimes 
committed by non-Indians against Indians in Indian country.  There, 
the Court held that even when federal law does not preempt state ju-
risdiction  under  ordinary  preemption  analysis,  preemption  may  still
occur  if  the  exercise  of  state  jurisdiction  would  unlawfully  infringe
upon tribal self-government.  Id., at 142–143.  Under Bracker’s balanc-
ing  test,  the  Court  considers  tribal  interests,  federal  interests,  and 
state  interests.  Id.,  at  145.  Here,  the  exercise  of  state  jurisdiction
would not infringe on tribal self-government.  And because a State’s 
jurisdiction is concurrent with federal jurisdiction, a state prosecution
would not preclude an earlier or later federal prosecution.  Finally, the
State  has  a  strong  sovereign  interest  in  ensuring  public  safety  and 
criminal justice within its territory, including an interest in protecting 
both Indian and non-Indian crime victims.  Pp. 18–20.

(c) This Court has long held that Indian country is part of a State, 
not separate from it.  Under the Constitution, States have jurisdiction
to prosecute crimes within their territory except when preempted by 
federal law or by principles of tribal self-government.  The default is 
that  States  have  criminal  jurisdiction  in  Indian  country  unless  that
jurisdiction  is  preempted.  And  that  jurisdiction  has  not  been 
preempted here. Pp. 21–25. 

Reversed and remanded. 

KAVANAUGH, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, 
C. J., and THOMAS, ALITO, and BARRETT, JJ., joined.  GORSUCH, J., filed a 
dissenting  opinion,  in  which  BREYER,  SOTOMAYOR,  and  KAGAN,  JJ., 
joined.