Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-429_8o6a.pdf
Page Number: 51.0

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

23 

GORSUCH, J., dissenting 

McBratney and Draper held that federal statutes admitting 
certain States to the Union effectively meant those States
could now prosecute crimes on tribal lands involving only
non-Indians.    Yet,  as  aggressive  as  these  decisions  were, 
they took care to safeguard the rule that a State’s admission 
to the Union does not convey with it the power to punish 
“crimes committed by or against Indians.”  McBratney, 104 
U. S., at 624; Draper, 164 U. S., at 247.  Indeed, soon after 
Oklahoma  became  a  State,  this  Court  explained  that  the 
“grant of statehood” may have endowed Oklahoma with au-
thority to try crimes “not committed by or against Indians,”
but  with  statehood  did  not  come  any  authority  to  try
“crimes by or against Indians” on tribal lands.  Ramsey, 271 
U. S., at 469; see also n. 5, supra; Donnelly v. United States, 
228 U. S. 243, 271 (1913); Williams v. Lee, 358 U. S., at 220; 
Cohen  506–509.    The  decision  whether  and  when  this  ar-
rangement  should  “cease”  “rest[ed]  with  Congress  alone.” 
Ramsey, 271 U. S., at 469. 

The truth is, Congress has authorized the application of 
state criminal law on tribal lands for offenses committed by
or  against  Native  Americans  only  in  very  limited  circum-
stances.  The most notable examples can be found in Public 
Law 280 and related statutes.  In 1940, Kansas successfully
lobbied  Congress  for  criminal  jurisdiction  in  Indian  coun-
try.  Nearly identical laws for North Dakota, Iowa, and New 
York  followed  close  behind.  Then  in  1953,  Congress 
adopted Public Law 280 in which it authorized five States
to exercise criminal jurisdiction on tribal lands and estab-
lished  procedures  for  additional  States  to  assume  similar 
authority.  In  1968,  Congress  amended  Public  Law  280.
Now,  before  a  State  like  Oklahoma  may  try  crimes  by  or 
against Native Americans arising on tribal lands, it must
take action to amend any state law disclaiming that author-
ity; then, the State must seek and obtain tribal consent to 
any  extension  of  state  jurisdiction.  See  Part  I–B,  supra; 
Clinton 958–962.  Unless a State takes these steps, it does