Here is “With historical promises in mind, justices weigh state criminal jurisdiction in Indian country.”
Previews of the case are here.
Background materials are here.
Indian Country Crimes Act
Preview of Tomorrow’s Argument in Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta
Background materials on the case here.
SCOTUSBlog preview (by Fletcher): “In sequel to McGirt, justices will again review scope of state prosecutorial power in Indian country“
Atlantic (by Rebecca Nagle and Allison Herrera): “Where Is Oklahoma Getting Its Numbers From in Its Supreme Court Case?“
NonDoc: “SCOTUS to hear state’s McGirt challenge in Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta“
Boston Review (by Mary Kathryn Nagle and Emma Lower): “What Will It Take to End Violence Against Native Women?“
Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta Background Materials
Supreme Court Merits Briefs:
Merits Stage Amicus Briefs Supporting Petitioner:
Oklahoma DAs and Sheriffs Amicus Brief
States Amicus Brief Supporting Oklahoma
Merits Stage Amicus Briefs Supporting Respondent:
Peace Commission Treaty Tribes Amicus Brief
Cert stage materials in Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta:
Oklahoma DAs Association Amicus Brief.pdf
Oklahoma Environmental Federation Amicus.PDF
Cherokee Nation Amicus Brief.pdf
Chickasaw and Choctaw Amicus.pdf
Lower court materials:
Castro-Huerta Brief on Reservation Disestablishment.pdf
State Brief on Concurrent Jurisdiction.pdf
Castro-Huerta Response Brief on Concurrent Jurisdiction.pdf
Oklahoma District Court Opinion.pdf
Castro-Huerta Petition in Error
Castro-Huerta Motion to Issue Mandate
Also, the plea agreement in United States v. Castro-Huerta (N.D. Okla.):
Bottom Side Briefs in Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta
Topside Briefs in Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta
Here:
Amicus briefs:
Oklahoma DAs and Sheriffs Amicus Brief
States Amicus Brief Supporting Oklahoma
Cert stage and lower court materials here.
SCOTUS Grants Oklahoma Petition to Consider Whether the State Can Prosecute Non-Indian – on – Indian Crime in Indian Country
Here is today’s order.
The grant is limited to question 1 — here are the questions presented:
- Whether a State has authority to prosecute non- Indians who commit crimes against Indians in Indian country.
- Whether McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020), should be overruled.
Cert stage materials in Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta:
Lower court materials:
Nevada Federal Court Denies Habeas Petition of Non-Indian Convicted of Crime on Tribal Lands
Here are the materials in Berry v. Baca (D. Nev.):
Federal Court Rejects McGirt Defenses in Prosecution of Indian Man for Gun Possession
Here are the materials in United States v. Billey (N.D. Okla.):
Federal Court Indian Country Determination Order [Ohkay Owingeh Pueblo]
Here are the materials in United States v. Vigil (D.N.M.):
Justice Dept. Cements Position on Concurrent Federal Criminal Jurisdiction in “Optional” P.L. 280 States
Here:
oaag-80488-v1-optional_pl_280_memo_to_u_s__attorneys
An excerpt:
For decades, conflicting judicial decisions and Department of Justice statements have led to uncertainty about whether the United States has concurrent jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1152 and 1153 over Indian-country crimes that fall within an “optional P.L. 280” State’s jurisdiction under Section 7 of Public Law No. 83-280, 67 Stat. 588, 590 (1953). The Acting Solicitor General, after reviewing prior positions of the Department and the underlying legal materials, has now concluded that the litigating position of the United States is that the United States does have this concurrent criminal jurisdiction. Your Offices therefore can bring prosecutions under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1152 and 1153, in accordance with 28 C.F.R. § 50.25(a)(2), notwithstanding any contrary view about optional P.L. 280 jurisdiction that the United States or the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) may have previously expressed.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.