https://sputnikglobe.com/20220629/scotus-us-states-can-prosecute-non-natives-for-crimes-on-reservations-against-natives--1096805766.html
SCOTUS: US States Can Prosecute Non-Natives for Crimes on Reservations Against Natives
SCOTUS: US States Can Prosecute Non-Natives for Crimes on Reservations Against Natives
Sputnik International
WASHINGTON (Sputnik) - States can prosecute non-Indian defendants for crimes committed against Indian victims on reservations, the US Supreme Court said on... 29.06.2022, Sputnik International
2022-06-29T17:16+0000
2022-06-29T17:16+0000
2022-06-29T17:16+0000
us
scotus
indigenous americans
https://cdn1.img.sputnikglobe.com/img/07e6/05/05/1095296115_0:0:3073:1728_1920x0_80_0_0_704acb140af1540a8d8639b2dcd28a11.jpg
“We conclude that the Federal Government and the State have concurrent jurisdiction to prosecute crimes committed by non-Indians against Indians in Indian country,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh said in the court’s majority opinion.The ruling arose from the State of Oklahoma’s attempt to prosecute Victor Manuel Castro-Huerta for child neglect. Castro-Huerta, a non-Indian, argued that the state did not have jurisdiction to prosecute him for the crime against his Cherokee Indian daughter, which occurred in Indian country.Castro-Huerta’s conviction was initially vacated by a state appeals court, but the Supreme Court’s ruling reversed their judgement and remanded the case for further proceedings.The decision reaffirms prior rulings by the court holding that Indian country is a part of a state, not separate from it, according to the majority opinion. Neither federal laws nor principles of tribal self-government preempt the jurisdiction of the state to prosecute crimes within their territory in this case, the opinion said.Dissenting Justices Neil Gorsuch, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor argued instead that states do not have criminal jurisdiction in Indian country unless specifically provided by Congress.The dissenting opinion, authored by Gorsuch, cites historical recognitions of tribal sovereignty by the government, including a promise made to the Cherokee in Oklahoma in 1906 to cede any jurisdiction over Indian country in the state.The Supreme Court’s ruling narrows the scope of their 2020 decision in McGirt v. Oklahoma, which found much of eastern Oklahoma to fall under tribal and federal jurisdiction and prompted Oklahoma to begin vacating past criminal cases for transfer to federal courts.
https://sputnikglobe.com/20220626/biden-refuses-to-expand-supreme-court-democratic-colleagues-say-otherwise-1096683583.html
Sputnik International
feedback@sputniknews.com
+74956456601
MIA „Rossiya Segodnya“
2022
Sputnik International
feedback@sputniknews.com
+74956456601
MIA „Rossiya Segodnya“
News
en_EN
Sputnik International
feedback@sputniknews.com
+74956456601
MIA „Rossiya Segodnya“
Sputnik International
feedback@sputniknews.com
+74956456601
MIA „Rossiya Segodnya“
us, scotus, indigenous americans
us, scotus, indigenous americans
SCOTUS: US States Can Prosecute Non-Natives for Crimes on Reservations Against Natives
WASHINGTON (Sputnik) - States can prosecute non-Indian defendants for crimes committed against Indian victims on reservations, the US Supreme Court said on Wednesday in a ruling.
“We conclude that the Federal Government and the State have concurrent jurisdiction to prosecute crimes committed by non-Indians against Indians in Indian country,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh said in the court’s majority opinion.
The ruling arose from the State of Oklahoma’s attempt to prosecute Victor Manuel Castro-Huerta for child neglect. Castro-Huerta, a non-Indian, argued that the state did not have jurisdiction to prosecute him for the crime against his Cherokee Indian daughter, which occurred in Indian country.
Castro-Huerta’s conviction was initially vacated by a state appeals court, but the Supreme Court’s ruling reversed their judgement and remanded the case for further proceedings.
The decision reaffirms prior rulings by the court holding that Indian country is a part of a state, not separate from it, according to the majority opinion. Neither federal laws nor principles of tribal self-government preempt the jurisdiction of the state to prosecute crimes within their territory in this case, the opinion said.
Dissenting Justices Neil Gorsuch, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor argued instead that states do not have criminal jurisdiction in Indian country unless specifically provided by Congress.
The dissenting opinion, authored by Gorsuch, cites historical recognitions of tribal sovereignty by the government, including a promise made to the Cherokee in Oklahoma in 1906 to cede any jurisdiction over Indian country in the state.
“After the Cherokee’s exile to what became Oklahoma, the federal government promised the Tribe that it would remain forever free from interference by state authorities,” Gorsuch said in the dissenting opinion. “One can only hope the political branches and future courts will do their duty to honor this Nation’s promises even as we have failed today to do our own.”
The Supreme Court’s ruling narrows the scope of their 2020 decision in McGirt v. Oklahoma, which found much of eastern Oklahoma to fall under tribal and federal jurisdiction and prompted Oklahoma to begin vacating past criminal cases for transfer to federal courts.
