Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta and why it matters. Quotes are taken from the syllabus (the Court’s short summary at the start of the opinion).
Summary
A short, plain-English overview of Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta.
In Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta, the Supreme Court addressed whether the State of Oklahoma has jurisdiction to prosecute non-Indians for crimes against Indians in Indian country. The Court reversed the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, holding that both the Federal Government and the State have concurrent jurisdiction in such cases. The decision clarifies the extent of state jurisdiction in Indian country.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta.
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.
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why Preemption is relevant to Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta
The case primarily addresses whether federal law preempts state jurisdiction in prosecuting crimes committed by non-Indians against Indians in Indian country.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)Held: The Federal Government and the State have concurrent jurisdiction to prosecute crimes committed by non-Indians against Indians in Indian country.
-
Why State–Federal Power is relevant to Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta
The case involves the allocation of authority between state and federal governments regarding jurisdiction over crimes in Indian country.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)The jurisdictional dispute in this case arises because Oklahoma's territory includes Indian country.
-
Why State Sovereign Immunity is relevant to Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta
The case touches on the limits of state jurisdiction and authority within Indian country, which relates to state sovereignty.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)States have jurisdiction to prosecute crimes committed in Indian country unless preempted.
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta that support the summary and concepts above.
The Federal Government and the State have concurrent jurisdiction to prosecute crimes committed by non-Indians against Indians in Indian country.
States have jurisdiction to prosecute crimes committed in Indian country unless preempted.
The default is that States have criminal jurisdiction in Indian country unless that jurisdiction is preempted.
