Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta

rdf:langString Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta

rdf:langString

rdf:langString Oklahoma v. Victor Manuel Castro-Huerta

rdf:langString Gorsuch

rdf:langString Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan

rdf:langString Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Barrett

rdf:langString ___

rdf:langString Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta,

rdf:langString Oklahoma v. Victor Manuel Castro-Huerta

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

rdf:langString Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta

rdf:langString Kavanaugh

rdf:langString Supreme Court

rdf:langString Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta, 597 U.S. ___ (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case related to McGirt v. Oklahoma, decided in 2020. In McGirt, the Supreme Court ruled that the U.S. Congress never properly disestablished the Indian reservations of the Five Civilized Tribes in Oklahoma when granting its statehood, and thus almost half the state was still considered to be Native American land. As a result of McGirt, crimes under the Major Crimes Act by Native Americans in the former reservations are treated as federal crimes rather than state crimes. In the wake of McGirt, the Oklahoma state courts started vacating past criminal cases to turn them over to federal courts. However, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals ruled that this would include crimes where the defendant was not a Native American but still occurred against Native Americans on Native American lands. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the state's challenge to this rule, but only investigating the issues of breadth of McGirt, and will not review McGirt itself. In the 5-4 ruling issued on June 29, 2022, the Court ruled that both federal and the state held joint jurisdiction to prosecute non-Native Americans for crimes on native lands.