Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-429_8o6a.pdf
Page Number: 18.0

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

15 

Opinion of the Court 

Moreover, there is a good explanation for why the Court’s
previous comments on this issue came only in the form of
tangential dicta.  The question of whether States have con-
current jurisdiction over crimes committed by non-Indians
against Indians in Indian country did not previously matter 
all  that  much  and  did  not  warrant  this  Court’s  review. 
Through  congressional  grants  of  authority  in  Public  Law 
280 or state-specific statutes, some States with substantial 
Indian populations have long possessed broad jurisdiction
to  prosecute  a  vast  array  of  crimes  in  Indian  country  (in-
cluding crimes by Indians).  See Brief for National Congress 
of American Indians as Amicus Curiae 20, and n. 2.  Indeed, 
Castro-Huerta notes that “21 States have jurisdiction over
crimes  ‘by  or  against’  Indians  in  some  Indian  country.”
Brief for Respondent 7.  So the General Crimes Act ques-
tion—namely,  whether  that  Act  preempts  inherent  state
prosecutorial  authority  in  Indian  country—was  not  rele-
vant in those States. 

In  any  event,  this  Court  never  considered  the  General 
Crimes  Act  preemption  question.   As  the  Office  of  Legal
Counsel put it, “many courts, without carefully considering 
the  question,  have  assumed  that  Federal  jurisdictio[n]
whenever it obtains is exclusive.  We nevertheless believe 
that  it  is  a  matter  that  should  not  be  regarded  as  settled
before it has been fully explored by the courts.”  3 Op. OLC,
at 117.  This case is the first time that the matter has been 
fully explored by this Court.

Until the Court’s decision in McGirt two years ago, this 

—————— 
that the Court thought that the State had concurrent authority with the 
Federal  Government  in  Indian  country,  unless  otherwise  preempted. 
The Court’s subsequent decision in United States v. Ramsey, 271 U. S. 
467 (1926), likewise considered whether the Federal Government’s “au-
thority” to prosecute crimes committed by or against Indians “was ended
by the grant of statehood.”  Id., at 469.  The Court held that federal au-
thority was not “ended” by statehood.  Ibid.  But the Court did not say 
that States lacked concurrent jurisdiction.