## Facts

- Victor Manuel Castro-Huerta, a non-Indian, was charged in Oklahoma state court with child neglect for severely neglecting his 5-year-old stepdaughter, a citizen of the Cherokee Nation.
- The neglect occurred in Tulsa within the boundaries of the Cherokee Reservation, treated as Indian country.
- A state jury convicted Castro-Huerta and he received a lengthy prison sentence.
- While his state appeal was pending, the Court recognized that certain eastern Oklahoma reservations, including the Cherokee Reservation, remain Indian country.
- Castro-Huerta argued that, because the offense was committed by a non-Indian against an Indian in Indian country, only the federal government could prosecute under the General Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1152.
- The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals agreed and vacated the conviction for lack of state jurisdiction.
- The Supreme Court granted review to decide whether a state may prosecute non-Indians for crimes against Indians in Indian country.

## Issues

1. Whether a state has authority to prosecute non-Indians who commit crimes against Indians in Indian country.
2. Whether the General Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1152, preempts state jurisdiction over such prosecutions.
3. Whether state prosecution of a non-Indian for a crime against an Indian in Indian country unlawfully infringes tribal self-government.

## Decision

- The Court reversed and remanded in a 5–4 decision authored by Justice Kavanaugh.
- The Court held that the federal government and the state have concurrent jurisdiction to prosecute crimes committed by non-Indians against Indians in Indian country.
- The Court concluded neither federal statutory preemption nor infringement of tribal self-government barred Oklahoma’s prosecution.

## Legal Principles

- As a general rule, a state has criminal jurisdiction within its territory, including Indian country, unless that authority is limited by federal law.
- State jurisdiction in Indian country may be restricted by (1) congressional preemption or (2) unlawful infringement of tribal self-government.
- The General Crimes Act extends certain federal criminal laws to Indian country but does not, by its terms, make federal jurisdiction exclusive or itself strip states of authority to prosecute non-Indians for crimes against Indians.
- A state prosecution of a non-Indian for crimes against Indians in Indian country does not unlawfully infringe tribal self-government where it does not displace tribal prosecutorial authority over tribal members and tribes generally lack criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians absent specific authorization.

## Conclusion

The Court held that, absent express congressional preemption, states and the federal government share concurrent authority to prosecute non-Indians who commit crimes against Indians in Indian country, reversing the state court’s decision that federal jurisdiction was exclusive.


Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta, 597 U.S. 629 (2022)