{"id":25836,"date":"2022-06-30T11:46:24","date_gmt":"2022-06-30T15:46:24","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.indianz.com\/News\/?p=25836"},"modified":"2022-06-30T11:46:26","modified_gmt":"2022-06-30T15:46:26","slug":"matthew-fletcher-u-s-supreme-court-disrupts-criminal-justice-in-indian-country","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/indianz.com\/News\/2022\/06\/30\/matthew-fletcher-u-s-supreme-court-disrupts-criminal-justice-in-indian-country\/","title":{"rendered":"Matthew Fletcher: U.S. Supreme Court disrupts criminal justice in Indian Country"},"content":{"rendered":" \"The<\/a>
The Great Hall of the U.S. Supreme Court. Sketch by Art Lien <\/figcaption>\r\n
In 5-4 ruling, court dramatically expands the power of states to prosecute crimes on reservations<\/div>\r\n
Thursday, June 30, 2022<\/div>\r\n
By Matthew L.M. Fletcher<\/div>\r\n
SCOTUSblog<\/div>\r\n
scotusblog.com<\/a><\/div>\r\n

<\/p>\r\nOn the second-to-last day of the 2021-22 term, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that Oklahoma \u2014 and all other states \u2014 possesses concurrent jurisdiction with the federal government over crimes committed by non-Indians against Indians in Indian country, wiping away centuries of tradition and practice.\r\n

<\/p>\r\nVictor Manuel Castro-Huerta, a non-Indian person, was convicted by the state of Oklahoma for criminal child neglect of a citizen of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians within the reservation boundaries of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma. That conviction came before the court\u2019s 2020 decision in McGirt v. Oklahoma<\/em><\/a>, which ruled that the Muscogee Nation\u2019s reservation had not been disestablished upon the granting of statehood to Oklahoma. As a result of McGirt, the reservations of other tribes similarly situated to Muscogee are also now considered extant, including that of the Cherokee Nation. All land within an extant Indian reservation is considered \u201cIndian country.\u201d\r\n

<\/p>\r\nMcGirt made clear that much of eastern Oklahoma was Indian country and, as a result, that state and local authorities have no jurisdiction to prosecute Indian defendants accused of crimes on that land. Only the federal government and the tribes themselves can prosecute those defendants. That outcome has its roots in the Trade and Intercourse Act, which was passed by the first Congress in 1790 and federalized virtually all aspects of Indian affairs. Ever since then, Indian country criminal jurisdiction had been considered exclusively federal and tribal. The court\u2019s 1832 decision in Worcester v. Georgia<\/em><\/a> confirmed that state law had no force in Indian country absent congressional authorization. However, the court chipped away at that general rule in United States v. McBratney<\/em><\/a> (1881) and Draper v. United States<\/em><\/a> (1896), allowing state prosecutions of non-Indians who committed crimes against non-Indians in Indian country, even in the absence of congressional authorization.\r\n

<\/p>\r\n