Law on Native Land: Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta
Two years after the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in McGirt v. Oklahoma, the Court issued another decision that reshaped the criminal jurisdiction landscape in Indian Country. In Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta (2022), the Court ruled that states share authority with the federal government to prosecute crimes committed by non-Indians against Indians in Indian Country.
This decision marked a significant shift. Where McGirt had reaffirmed tribal sovereignty and exclusive federal jurisdiction in many cases, Castro-Huerta opened the door for state prosecutions in a category of cases that had long been understood to be federal only.
The Case Background
Victor Manuel Castro-Huerta, a non-Indian, was charged in Oklahoma state court with child neglect involving his stepdaughter, who is Cherokee. The crime occurred within the Cherokee Nation Reservation, territory that McGirt had confirmed remains Indian Country.
After McGirt, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals vacated his state conviction, reasoning that the state lacked jurisdiction. Federal prosecutors refiled the charges in federal court. The case then went to the U.S. Supreme Court on the narrow question of whether states have concurrent authority to prosecute non-Indians who commit crimes against Indians in Indian Country.
What the Court Decided
In a 5–4 decision, the Court sided with Oklahoma. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing for the majority, concluded that states have concurrent jurisdiction with the federal government in these cases. He reasoned that:
Indian Country is part of a state’s territory unless Congress clearly says otherwise.
Federal law gives the federal government jurisdiction but does not explicitly exclude the states.
Allowing state prosecutions ensures crimes do not go unpunished, especially in areas where federal prosecutors are overwhelmed.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, who had authored the McGirt decision, wrote a sharp dissent. He emphasized that treaties, history, and precedent had long recognized that states lack authority over crimes involving Indians in Indian Country unless Congress clearly authorizes it.
The Impact of Castro-Huerta
The decision was celebrated by Governor Kevin Stitt and many state officials who had criticized McGirt as disruptive. They argued that concurrent jurisdiction would help fill gaps in law enforcement and prevent victims from being left without justice.
Tribal nations, however, saw the ruling as a retreat from sovereignty. By giving the state new authority, the Court weakened the principle that tribes and the federal government alone govern criminal justice in Indian Country. Tribal leaders called the ruling an attack on self-government and treaty rights.
Why It Matters
Castro-Huerta significantly altered the balance of jurisdiction in Oklahoma and beyond. Its key consequences include:
✔️ States now have power to prosecute non-Indians who commit crimes against Indians on reservations
✔️ Federal jurisdiction remains intact, creating overlapping authority between state and federal courts
✔️ Tribal sovereignty was narrowed, as the ruling chipped away at the exclusive role of federal and tribal governments in Indian Country
The decision also introduced new complexities, as defendants may now face prosecution in both state and federal court for the same conduct.
Key Takeaway
Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta pulled back from the sweeping recognition of sovereignty in McGirt. While it did not undo McGirt, it gave states a new foothold in Indian Country and raised serious questions about the future of tribal authority.
The next post in Law on Native Land will turn to Oklahoma appellate decisions, including Deo v. Parish, where the state courts carved out even more space for state jurisdiction over crimes involving Native defendants.