Enduring and fruitful tribal-state cooperation will only come when states recognize tribal governments as equal, sovereign nations. Unfortunately, Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta has allowed the potential for Indian Law to be transported back in time to an era where states pushed for “unity” between state-tribal relations, but really only hoped to swallow tribal governments.

Castro-Huerta held for the first time that state governments have concurrent jurisdiction over crimes committed by non-Indians against Indians in Indian Country. Ignoring many years of judicial precedent and undermining legislation that sought to bolster tribal sovereignty, the decision muddles an already-confusing patchwork of laws that govern which layer of government has criminal jurisdiction over certain crimes committed in Indian Country.

This Note seeks to disprove the Castro-Huerta Court’s shaky reasoning and explain that in disregarding and misinterpreting centuries worth of Indian Law, the Court’s ruling actually increases public safety concerns in Indian Country while stripping tribes of their inherent sovereignty. Part I provides an overview of the current mechanisms for enforcing criminal law in Indian Country between federal, state, and tribal governments. Part II argues that, contrary to the view of the Castro-Huerta majority, granting states concurrent criminal jurisdiction over certain crimes is likely to deepen tensions in many tribal-state relationships and exacerbate public safety concerns on tribal land. Finally, Part III presents specific initiatives Congress could consider to legislatively modify the Castro-Huerta decision.

Continue reading Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta Leaves a Dangerous Wake: What the Added Layer of State Criminal Jurisdiction Means for Tribal Sovereignty and Public Safety in Indian Country