SCOTUSBlog Recap of Castro-Huerta Oral Argument

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.

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?

Yes, Spirit is set to argue for the defense. . . .

Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta Background Materials

Supreme Court Merits Briefs:

Petitioner’s Brief

Respondent’s Brief

Reply

Merits Stage Amicus Briefs Supporting Petitioner:

Oklahoma DAs and Sheriffs Amicus Brief

Police Chiefs Amicus Brief

Industry Amicus Brief

States Amicus Brief Supporting Oklahoma

Tulsa Amicus Brief

Merits Stage Amicus Briefs Supporting Respondent:

United States Amicus Brief

Five Tribes Amicus Brief

NCAI Amicus Brief

Former US Attys Amicus Brief

Peace Commission Treaty Tribes Amicus Brief

NIWRC Amicus Brief

Scholars Amicus Brief

Cert stage materials in Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta:

Petition.pdf

Oklahoma DAs Association Amicus Brief.pdf

Oklahoma Environmental Federation Amicus.PDF

Texas Amicus Brief.pdf

Tulsa Amicus Brief.pdf

Castro-Huerta BIO.pdf

Cherokee Nation Amicus Brief.pdf

Chickasaw and Choctaw Amicus.pdf

MCN Amicus Brief.pdf

Oklahoma Cert Reply.pdf

Lower court materials:

OCCA Opinion.pdf

Castro-Huerta Brief on Reservation Disestablishment.pdf

Cherokee Amicus Brief.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

OCCA Order Issuing Mandate

Also, the plea agreement in United States v. Castro-Huerta (N.D. Okla.):

Bottom Side Briefs in Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta

Here:

United States Amicus Brief

Five Tribes Amicus Brief

NCAI Amicus Brief

Former US Attys Amicus Brief

Peace Commission Treaty Tribes Amicus Brief

NIWRC Amicus Brief

Scholars Amicus Brief

Topside briefs here.

Topside Briefs in Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta

Here:

Amicus briefs:

Oklahoma DAs and Sheriffs Amicus Brief

Police Chiefs Amicus Brief

Polluters Amicus Brief

States Amicus Brief Supporting Oklahoma

Tulsa Amicus Brief

Reply

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:

  1. Whether a State has authority to prosecute non- Indians who commit crimes against Indians in Indian country.
  2. Whether McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020), should be overruled.

Cert stage materials in Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta:

Lower court materials:

Federal Court Indian Country Determination Order [Ohkay Owingeh Pueblo]

Here are the materials in United States v. Vigil (D.N.M.):

60-us-motion-for-indian-country-determination-1.pdf

71-opposition.pdf

89-reply.pdf

201-dct-order.pdf

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.