Bartlesville Radio: The area’s best source for news, weather and sports!

The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that states can prosecute non-Natives who commit crimes against Native Americans within indigenous reservations.

 

As www.axios.com first reporterd,the opinion has the potential of redoing the court system not just in Oklahoma but in all 50 states, and highlights the precarious nature of Indigenous sovereignty in the U.S.

 

 Vincent Castro-Huerta is a non-Native who was living on Cherokee land when he was charged with and convicted of child neglect of his stepdaughter, who is Native, in state court. He was sentenced to 35 years in prison.

 

Castro-Huerta, who had already pleaded guilty to federal charges, sued to challenge his conviction, arguing that due to the Supreme Court’s 2020 McGirt v. Oklahoma decision, the state did not have jurisdiction over his case.

 

In McGirt, the court ruled that states cannot prosecute crimes committed on Native lands without prior federal approval. The federal government had exclusive jurisdiction over certain major crimes committed by a Native American on tribal land, per the decision. It meant states cannot try Native Americans who commit crimes on tribal lands.

 

Oklahoma, however, claimed it had jurisdiction over Castro-Huerta’s case because the perpetrator is non-Native, whereas McGirt involved a Native defendant.

 

Part of the state’s argument was that it allegedly lost jurisdiction over thousands of cases that are "going un-investigated and unprosecuted, endangering public safety" following the McGirt ruling. (Those numbers have been contested.)

 

The court's decision limits McGirt's scope, meaning that now tribes only have power over Native Americans who commit crimes on indigenous reservations.

 

Following today’s United States Supreme Court decision in Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta, Cherokee Nation Principal Chief Chuck Hoskin Jr. issued the following statement:

 

“With today’s decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against legal precedent and the basic principles of congressional authority and Indian law. During arguments, Justice Gorsuch asked if the Court would ‘wilt today because of a social media campaign’ – it is unfortunate that the answer appears to be yes. The dissent today did not mince words – the Court failed in its duty to honor this nation’s promises, defied Congress’s statutes, and accepted the “lawless disregard of the Cherokee’s sovereignty.”

 

While we are disappointed in this ruling, it does not diminish our commitment to meeting our public safety responsibilities and to protecting Oklahomans on our reservations and across the state. Tribal and federal jurisdiction remain unchanged by this decision, but the need to work together on behalf of Oklahomans has never been more clear.

 

Also unchanged is the affirmation of our reservation and our sovereignty. Despite the Oklahoma governor’s lies and attacks, the Court has refused to overturn the McGirt decision. As we enter a chapter of concurrent jurisdiction, tribes will continue to seek partnership and collaboration with state authorities while expanding our own justice systems. We hope that with these legal questions behind us, Governor Stitt will finally lay his anti-tribal agenda to rest and come to the table to move forward with us – for the sake of Oklahomans and public safety.”