Document Type
Article
Publication Date
2024
Abstract
The Supreme Court's 2022 decision in Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta upended federal Indian law by allowing states to prosecute crimes involving Indians committed in Indian country. Castro-Huerta created a concurrent jurisdiction over Indian country crimes involving non-Indians. While concurrent jurisdiction increases the number of law enforcement agents with jurisdiction, it also creates opportunities for those law enforcement agents to shirk responsibility. Neither state nor federal law enforcement is accountable to tribes, so Castro-Huerta is likely to create a pass the buck mentality among non-Indian law enforcement. Moreover, there is little to indicate expanding state authority over tribes will benefit Indians. In fact, tribes' experience with state jurisdiction suggests state jurisdiction leads to decreased public safety in Indian country. Lastly, the Castro-Huerta decision is a massive infringement upon tribal sovereignty. The decision may exacerbate conflicts between tribes and state, and it also jeopardizes tribes' limited jurisdiction over non-Indian criminals. This Article questions the Court's claim that its decision will improve public safety on reservations.
Recommended Citation
Adam Crepelle, Timothy Purdon & Brendan Johnson, Passing the Buck: The Perils of Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta, 101 Denv. L. Rev. 261 (2024).
Included in
Criminal Law Commons, Indigenous, Indian, and Aboriginal Law Commons, Law Enforcement and Corrections Commons, Supreme Court of the United States Commons