Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-429_8o6a.pdf
Page Number: 21.0

18 

OKLAHOMA v. CASTRO-HUERTA 

Opinion of the Court 

In any event, to the extent that there is any overlap (or 
even complete overlap) between Public Law 280’s jurisdic-
tional grant and some of the States’ preexisting jurisdiction 
with respect to crimes committed in Indian country, it made 
good sense for Congress in 1953 to explicitly grant such au-
thority in Public Law 280.  The scope of the States’ author-
ity had not previously been resolved by this Court, except 
in cases such as McBratney and Draper with respect to non-
Indian on non-Indian crimes.  Congressional action in the 
face of such legal uncertainty cannot reasonably be charac-
terized  as  unnecessary  surplusage.    See  Nielsen  v.  Preap, 
586  U. S.  ___,  ___–___  (2019)  (slip  op.,  at  20–21).    And  fi-
nally, even if there is some surplusage, the Court has stated
that “[r]edundancy is not a silver bullet” when interpreting 
statutes.  Rimini Street, Inc. v. Oracle USA, Inc., 586 U. S. 
___, ___ (2019) (slip op., at 11). 

In sum, Public Law 280 does not preempt state authority 
to prosecute crimes committed by non-Indians against In-
dians in Indian country. 

B 
Applying  what has been referred to as the Bracker bal-
ancing test, this Court has recognized that even when fed-
eral law does not preempt state jurisdiction under ordinary 
preemption analysis, preemption may still occur if the ex-
ercise of state jurisdiction would unlawfully infringe upon
tribal self-government.  See Bracker, 448 U. S., at 142–143; 
see also New Mexico v. Mescalero Apache Tribe, 462 U. S. 
324, 333–335 (1983).  Under the Bracker balancing test, the 
Court considers tribal interests, federal interests, and state 
interests.  448 U. S., at 145.5 

—————— 

5 The dissent suggests that we should not reach Bracker because Con-
gress has already spoken to the issue and preempted state jurisdiction. 
Post, at 30−32 (opinion of GORSUCH, J.).  As already discussed, Congress 
did not preempt the State’s jurisdiction over crimes committed by non-
Indians  against  Indians  in  Indian  country.    Therefore,  we  proceed  to