Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-429_8o6a.pdf
Page Number: 6.0

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

3 

Opinion of the Court 

Indian (Castro-Huerta) against an Indian (his stepdaugh-
ter).  All agree that the Federal Government has jurisdic-
tion to prosecute crimes committed by non-Indians against 
Indians  in  Indian  country.    The  question  is  whether  the 
Federal Government’s jurisdiction is exclusive, or whether 
the State also has concurrent jurisdiction with the Federal
Government. 

In  the  wake  of  McGirt,  Castro-Huerta  argued  that  the 
Federal Government’s jurisdiction to prosecute crimes com-
mitted by a non-Indian against an Indian in Indian country 
is exclusive and that the State therefore lacked jurisdiction 
to  prosecute  him.    The  Oklahoma  Court  of  Criminal  Ap-
peals agreed with Castro-Huerta.  Relying on an earlier Ok-
lahoma  decision  holding  that  the  federal  General  Crimes 
Act grants the Federal Government exclusive jurisdiction, 
the court ruled that the State did not have concurrent ju-
risdiction  to  prosecute  crimes  committed  by  non-Indians 
against Indians in Indian country.  The court therefore va-
cated Castro-Huerta’s conviction.  No. F–2017–1203 (Apr. 
29, 2021); see also Bosse v. State, 2021 OK CR 3, 484 P. 3d 
286; Roth v. State, 2021 OK CR 27, 499 P. 3d 23. 

While Castro-Huerta’s state appellate proceedings were
ongoing, a federal grand jury in Oklahoma indicted Castro-
Huerta  for  the  same  conduct.    Castro-Huerta  accepted  a
plea agreement for a 7-year sentence followed by removal
from the United States.  (Castro-Huerta is not a U. S. citi-
zen and is unlawfully in the United States.)  In other words, 
putting  aside  parole  possibilities,  Castro-Huerta  in  effect
received a 28-year reduction of his sentence as a result of 
McGirt. 

Castro-Huerta’s case exemplifies a now-familiar pattern
in Oklahoma in the wake of McGirt.  The Oklahoma courts 
have reversed numerous state convictions on that same ju-
risdictional ground.  After having their state convictions re-
versed,  some  non-Indian  criminals  have  received  lighter