Skip to main content

PROSECUTORIAL AUTHORITY

Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta

Issues

Do states have criminal jurisdiction over crimes carried out by non-Indians against Indians in Indian country?

This case asks the Supreme Court to consider the contours of state prosecutorial power in Indian country. This case flows from the Supreme Court’s decision in McGirt v. Oklahoma, which found that a significant portion of eastern Oklahoma was Indian country for criminal law purposes. Oklahoma asserts that, under principles of state sovereignty, it has the authority to prosecute crimes committed by non-Indians against Indians in Indian country within the state’s territorial boundaries. Victor Manuel Castro-Huerta counters that a state can prosecute non-Indians for crimes committed in Indian country only when Congress has authorized the state to do so; in all other situations, the federal government has the exclusive authority to prosecute under the General Crimes Act. This case has significant implications for tribal sovereignty and criminal jurisdictional boundaries between states and Indian tribes.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether a state has authority to prosecute non-Indians who commit crimes against Indians in Indian country.

Victor Manuel Castro-Huerta (“Castro-Huerta”) is a non-Indian who was convicted of child neglect by a jury in Tulsa County District Court, a state court in Oklahoma. Castro-Huerta v.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Professor Michael Sliger for his guidance and insights into this case.

Submit for publication
0
Subscribe to PROSECUTORIAL AUTHORITY