Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta

Summarized by:

  • Court: United States Supreme Court
  • Area(s) of Law: Criminal Procedure
  • Date Filed: June 29, 2022
  • Case #: 21-429
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: KAVANAUGH, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and THOMAS, ALITO, and BARRETT, JJ., joined. GORSUCH, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined.
  • Full Text Opinion

The Federal Government and the State have concurrent jurisdiction to prosecute crimes committed by non-Indians against Indians in Indian Country.

Castro-Huerta, a non-Indian, was convicted of neglecting his stepdaughter, a Cherokee Indian. While awaiting appeal in state court, this Court established eastern Oklahoma as “Indian country” in McGirt v. Oklahoma, 591 U.S. _____ (2020). Castro-Huerta argued the federal government’s jurisdiction to prosecute crimes committed by a non-Indian against an Indian in “Indian country” is exclusive based on the General Crimes Act and Public Law 280 and therefore the State lacked jurisdiction to prosecute him. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals agreed, vacating his conviction. Castro-Huerta was charged in Federal court for the same criminal incident and was subsequently convicted. This Court granted certiorari. The Court held that that States may exercise criminal jurisdiction within their territory, unless preempted by Federal Law and Indian country is within the State’s territory. REVERSED AND REMANDED.

Advanced Search


Back to Top