The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday in favor of Oklahoma‘s bid to prosecute non-American Indians who commit crimes against Native American tribal members on land legally known as “Indian country.”
In a 5-4 opinion written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the court found that the federal government and Oklahoma have concurrent jurisdiction to prosecute crimes committed by non-Native Americans against American Indians on native land.
Oklahoma Republican Gov. Kevin Stitt celebrated the decision, saying the ruling is a “clear victory for all four million Oklahomans.”
The 2020 Supreme Court decision in McGirt v. Oklahoma voided the state’s criminal jurisdiction over crimes committed by or against tribal citizens, allowing only tribes and the federal government to have prosecutorial authority in a large eastern portion of Oklahoma.
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT WARNS CRIME ‘SURGE’ MAY BE HEADED FOR EASTERN OKLAHOMA
“We conclude that the Federal Government and the State have concurrent jurisdiction to prosecute crimes committed by non-Indians against Indians in Indian country,” Kavanaugh wrote for the majority.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, the Trump appointee who wrote the 2020 decision, dissented, along with the liberal bloc of Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan.
“One can only hope the political branches and future courts will do their duty to honor this Nation’s promises even as we have failed today to do our own,” Gorsuch wrote, expressing outrage with Kavanaugh’s majority opinion.
“If the Court’s ruling today sounds like a legislative committee report touting the benefits of some newly proposed bill, that’s because it is exactly that … The Court’s decision is not a judicial interpretation of the law’s meaning; it is the pastiche of a legislative process.”
At its core, the case surrounded Victor Manuel Castro-Huerta, 36, who was convicted of neglecting his 5-year-old stepdaughter who has cerebral palsy and is legally blind. He was sentenced to 35 years in prison. However, a state court voided his conviction, saying the Supreme Court’s 2020 ruling deprived Oklahoma authorities of jurisdiction in Castro-Huerta’s case.
Now, the high court is reining in the effects of the 2020 decision by arguing McGirt does not apply to Castro-Huerta’s previous conviction because the 5-year-old defendant was Native.
The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals previously ruled the state does not have the right to prosecute non-American Indians for crimes that occur to a Native victim on tribal land, prompting the state to appeal the case to the high court.
Stitt and state Attorney General John O’Connor have vehemently opposed the July 2020 McGirt ruling and a state court ruling that followed, which voided Oklahoma’s criminal jurisdiction in a significant portion of the eastern part of the state when a case involves a member of a federally recognized tribe.
“Since the Court’s 2020 McGirt decision, federal prosecutors have declined thousands of cases like Castro-Huerta, a non-Native who monstrously abused his 5-year old Native stepdaughter. Justice has been delayed and denied to thousands of Native victims in our state for no reason other than their race,” Stitt wrote, saying that the state’s law enforcement can now work efficiently and enforce the law equally.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
However, Cherokee Nation Principal Chief Chuck Hoskin, Jr. condemned the decision.
“With today’s decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against legal precedent and the basic principles of congressional authority and Indian law,” Hoskin said in a statement.
