Details

Autor(en) / Beteiligte

• Ramoutar, Eric

Titel

UNPRINCIPLED PREEMPTION: WHY THE SUPREME COURT WAS WRONG IN OKLAHOMA v. CASTRO-HUERTA TO ABANDON EXCLUSIVE FEDERAL JURISDICTION OVER CRIMES BY NON-INDIANS AGAINST INDIANS IN INDIAN COUNTRY

Ist Teil von

• American Indian law review, 2024-01, Vol.48 (1), p.115-178

Ort / Verlag

Norman: University of Oklahoma

Erscheinungsjahr

2024

Quelle

Nexis Uni

Beschreibungen/Notizen

• The division of criminal jurisdiction in Indian Country has been a source of controversy since the earliest days of the republic. The contemporary arrangement is the product of a complex interaction between treaties, federal statutes, and common law gloss. Since 1881, the prevailing understanding has been that while states have jurisdiction to prosecute crimes in Indian Country that do not involve Indians, jurisdiction over crimes by or against Indians lies with the federal government and the tribes. In Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta, the Supreme Court upended that understanding, holding for the first time that states have jurisdiction, unless expressly preempted by federal law, to prosecute crimes by non-Indians against Indians in Indian Country. This Article argues that the Supreme Court's decision was grounded in an ahistorical understanding of the scope of federal authority over Indian Country, an incorrect reading of the relevant case law, and a dubious application of the Indian Country Preemption Doctrine that caused the Court to ignore the preemptive effect of the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968. The Article concludes by arguing that, legal errors notwithstanding, the impact of the Court's decision may be blunted by Oklahoma state law.