The Supreme Court in June ruled 5-4 that the State of Oklahoma can
prosecute non-Native Americans in Indian Country, clawing back part of
its 2020 decision in McGirt v. Oklahoma which limited the state’s
jurisdiction in land governed by federal treaties. The McGirt decision
reasoned that the Creek Nation’s reservation in Oklahoma had never
been properly de-established, thus the eastern part of Oklahoma,
including Tulsa, was recognized as Indian Country with exclusive
Federal and Tribal jurisdiction. The Court’s ruling in McGirt’s most
notable consequence was criminal cases being transferred from state
courts to Federal and tribal venues which had exclusive jurisdiction to
prosecute crimes committed by or against an Indian in Indian Country.
The decision greatly increased the criminal caseloads in impacted U.S.
Attorney Offices.

The Court’s latest ruling, Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta, took a limited
view of sovereignty of tribes in 21st century America, discounting the
significance of 19th century treaties, and asserted that “Indian country is
part of the State” not separate from it. The opinion, written by Justice
Kavanaugh, reasoned that, as a result, the state retains jurisdiction
there unless Congress expressly suspended it, and held that the Federal
Government and the State of Oklahoma have concurrent jurisdiction to
prosecute crimes committed by a non-Indian against an Indian in Indian Country.