Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-429_8o6a.pdf
Page Number: 39

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

11 

GORSUCH, J., dissenting 

by and against tribal members and Oklahoma can pursue 
cases  involving  only  non-Indians—as  lawless  dystopias. 
See  Brief  for  Cherokee  Nation  et al.  as  Amici  Curiae  18 
(Cherokee Brief ) (“The State’s tale of a criminal dystopia in
eastern Oklahoma is just that: A tale”). 

That effort culminated in this case.  In it, Oklahoma has 
pursued alternative lines of argument.  First, the State has 
asked  this  Court  to  revisit  McGirt  and  unilaterally  elimi-
nate all reservations in Oklahoma.  Second, the State has 
argued that it enjoys a previously unrecognized “inherent” 
authority  to  try  crimes  within  reservation  boundaries  by 
non-Indians against tribal members—a claim Oklahoma’s 
own courts have rejected.  See Bosse v. State, 2021 OK CR 
3, 484 P. 3d 286, 294–295. 

Ultimately,  this  Court  declined  to  entertain  the  State’s
first argument but agreed to review the second.  Nominally,
the question comes to us in a case involving Victor Castro-
Huerta, a non-Indian who abused his Cherokee stepdaugh-
ter  within  the  Tribe’s  reservation.  Initially,  a  state  court
convicted  him  for  a  state  crime.    After  McGirt,  the  Okla-
homa Court of Criminal Appeals determined that his con-
viction was invalid because only federal and tribal officials
possess authority to prosecute crimes by or against Native
Americans on the Cherokee Reservation.  See App. to Pet.
for Cert. 4a.  The federal government swiftly reindicted Mr. 
Castro-Huerta, and a federal court again found him guilty.
Now  before  us,  Oklahoma  seeks  to  undo  Mr.  Castro-
Huerta’s federal conviction and have him transferred from 
federal  prison  to  a  state  facility  to  resume  his  state  sen-
tence. 

Really,  though,  this  case  has less to  do  with  where  Mr. 
Castro-Huerta  serves  his  time  and  much  more  to  do  with 
Oklahoma’s effort to gain a legal foothold for its wish to ex-
ercise jurisdiction over crimes involving tribal members on 
tribal lands.  To succeed, Oklahoma must disavow adverse 
rulings from its own courts; disregard its 1991 recognition