Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-429_8o6a.pdf
Page Number: 62

34 

OKLAHOMA v. CASTRO-HUERTA 

GORSUCH, J., dissenting 

the morning they became of age.”  Debo 197–198.  Others 
were  subjected  to  predatory  guardianships;  state  judges 
even  “reward[ed]  their  supporters  [with]  guardianship
appointments.” 
Id.,  at  183.  Oklahoma’s  courts  also 
sometimes  sanctioned  the  “legalized  robbery”  of  these 
Native  American  children  “through  the  probate  courts.” 
Id.,  at  182.    Even  almost  a  century  on,  the  federal
government warned of “the possibility of prejudice [against 
Native Americans] in state courts.”  Flint Amicus Brief 5. 
Whatever may have happened in the past, it seems the
Court can imagine only a bright  new day ahead.  Moving
forward,  the  Court  cheerily  promises,  more  prosecuting 
authorities  can  only  “help.”  Three  sets  of  prosecutors—
federal, tribal, and state—are sure to prove better than two.
But  again  it’s  not  hard  to  imagine  reasons  why  the 
Cherokee  might  see  things  differently.    If  more  sets  of 
prosecutors  are  always  better,  why  not  allow  Texas  to
enforce  its  laws  in  California?  Few  sovereigns  or  their
citizens  would  see  that  as  an  improvement.   Yet  it  seems 
the Court cannot grasp why the Tribe may not.

jurisdiction  on  tribal 

The  Court  also  neglects  to  consider  actual  experience
with  concurrent  state 
lands. 
According to a group of former United States Attorneys, in
practice concurrent jurisdiction has sometimes “create[d] a
pass-the-buck dynamic . . . with the end result being fewer 
police  and  more  crime.”  Brief  for  Former  United  States 
Attorneys et al. as Amici Curiae 13; see also C. Goldberg,
Public  Law  280:  The  Limits  of  State  Jurisdiction  Over 
Reservation Indians, 22 UCLA L. Rev. 535, 552, and n. 92 
(1975);  Goldberg-Ambrose  1423.  Federal  authorities  may 
reduce  their  involvement  when  state  authorities  are 
present.  In turn, some States may not wish to devote the
resources  required  and  may  view  the  responsibility  as  an 
unfunded federal mandate.  Thanks to realities like these, 
“[a]lmost  as  soon  as  Congress  began  granting  States 
[criminal]  jurisdiction”  through  Public  Law  280,  “affected