Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta (21-429)

argument 21-429

Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta

Supreme Court of the United States 2h 9m 8 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 6 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the central jurisdictional question about state authority over crimes in Indian country?

John G. Roberts 0:00

We will hear argument this morning in case twenty one four twenty nine, Oklahoma versus Castro Rueta. Mr Shamligam?

John O'Connor 0:08

Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the court. This case presents a question that has taken on exceptional practical importance in the wake of McGurt. The question is whether a state has authority to prosecute non Indians who commit crimes in Indian country, regardless of whether the victim is a non Indian or an Indian. The answer to that question is yes. A state has inherent sovereign authority to punish crimes committed within its borders, and no federal law preempts that authority as to crimes committed by non Indians. Respondent relies on two statutes, the General Crimes Act and Public Law two hundred eighty. But neither of those statutes says anything about preemption. As this court has explained, the General Crimes Act merely incorporates the substantive criminal law that applies in Federal Enclaves.

John O'Connor 0:54

It does not go further and address state jurisdiction. As this Court has also explained, Public Law two hundred and eighty simply expanded the criminal and civil jurisdiction of qualifying states. It did not somehow divest all states of pre existing jurisdiction. The mere fact that some members of Congress may have believed that the states would otherwise have lacked jurisdiction over certain crimes does not give the law preemptive effect. Because this case does not implicate a tribe's right to govern itself and to punish tribal offenders, the court need not resort to the more flexible balancing approach that it has used elsewhere. But here, any balancing weighs heavily in the state's favor. The state has a paramount interest in ensuring public safety.

John O'Connor 1:39

And concurrent state and federal jurisdiction would only enhance law enforcement in Indian country, especially because the tribes ordinarily lack jurisdiction over non Indian offenders. The federal government now takes the position that it should have exclusive jurisdiction. But that position is simply mind boggling in light of the situation in Oklahoma. where, by the government's own admission, whole categories of crimes are going unprosecuted in the aftermath of McGurch. Because no federal law preempts the state's authority to prosecute crimes committed by non Indians, the judgment below should be reversed. I welcome the Court's questions.

Clarence Thomas 2:17

Uh council the uh These reservations have been around a long time. And Uh why is it now that uh why n after so many years that we are getting the first case involving jurisdiction over non Indians committing crimes against Indians?

John O'Connor 2:38

Justice Thomas, uh only in twenty twenty did forty three percent of the state of I Oklahoma become Indian country. Before that there was comparatively little Indian country uh in the state of Oklahoma. And so this was frankly, not an issue in Oklahoma, and not an issue that arose all that frequently in the rest of the country either. That having been said, to be sure, there are reported cases mostly from state courts in which the issue arose at various points over the years. And notwithstanding this court's dicta, this has been an open question. Indeed, as recently as the nineteen eighties, the Justice Department took the contrary position on this question. Certainly, as I said at the outset, this issue has taken on acute importance in light of the situation on the ground in Oklahoma.

John O'Connor 3:28

There are now essentially three times as many people living in Indian country in the United States as a result of this court's decision in McGurt. There are now one point eight million more people living in Indian country. And our best estimate is that of the cases affected by McGurt, Approximately twenty percent of those cases involve this permutation, namely crimes committed by non Indians against Indians.

Clarence Thomas 3:53

Is there a problem just and this just a practical a question about practice uh and practical considerations? How do you determine whether or not the victim is an Indian? This case involves a little girl. uh with uh cerebral palsy. And is there a preliminary jurisdictional question as to whether or not the victim is a is or is not an Indian?