Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-429_8o6a.pdf
Page Number: 23

20 

OKLAHOMA v. CASTRO-HUERTA 

Opinion of the Court 

States has explained in the past, “recognition of concurrent 
state  jurisdiction”  could  “facilitate  effective  law  enforce-
ment  on  the  Reservation,  and  thereby  further  the  federal
and tribal interests in protecting Indians and their property 
against the actions of non-Indians.”  Brief for United States 
as Amicus Curiae in Arizona v. Flint, O. T. 1988, No. 603, 
p. 6.  The situation might be different if state jurisdiction 
ousted federal jurisdiction.  But because the State’s juris-
diction  would  be  concurrent  with  federal  jurisdiction,  a
state prosecution would not preclude an earlier or later fed-
eral prosecution and would not harm the federal interest in 
protecting Indian victims. 

Third, the State has a strong sovereign interest in ensur-
ing  public  safety  and  criminal  justice  within  its  territory,
and in protecting all crime victims.  See Dibble, 21 How., at 
370.  The State also has a strong interest in ensuring that
criminal  offenders—especially  violent  offenders—are  ap-
propriately punished and do not harm others in the State. 
The State’s interest in protecting crime victims includes 
both  Indian  and  non-Indian  victims.    If  his  victim  were  a 
non-Indian,  Castro-Huerta  could  be  prosecuted  by  the 
State,  as  he  acknowledges.  But  because  his  victim  is  an 
Indian, Castro-Huerta says that he is free from state pros-
ecution.  Castro-Huerta’s  argument  would  require  this
Court to treat Indian victims as second-class citizens.  We 
decline to do so.7 

—————— 

7 Castro-Huerta notes that many tribes were enemies of States in the 
1700s and 1800s.  The theory appears to be that States (unlike the Fed-
eral Government) cannot be trusted to fairly and aggressively prosecute 
crimes committed by non-Indians against Indians in 2022.  That theory 
is misplaced for at least two reasons.  First, the State’s jurisdiction would 
simply be concurrent with, not exclusive of, the Federal Government’s. 
If concurrent state jurisdiction somehow poses a problem, Congress can 
seek to alter it.  Second, many tribes were also opposed to the Federal 
Government  at  least  as  late  as  the  Civil  War.    Indeed,  some  of  those 
tribes, including the Cherokees, held black slaves and entered into trea-
ties with the Confederate government.  A. Gibson, Native Americans and