Oklahoma can try cases on tribal lands
State can step in when victims are Native American
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that Oklahoma can prosecute non-native Americans for crimes committed on tribal land when the victim is Native American.
The 5-4 decision cut back on the high court’s ruling from 2020 that said a large chunk of eastern Oklahoma remains an American Indian reservation. The first decision left the state unable to prosecute Native Americans accused of crimes on tribal lands that include most of Tulsa, the state’s second-largest city with a population of about 413,000.
A state court later ruled that the Supreme Court decision also stripped the state of its ability to prosecute anyone for crimes committed on tribal land if either the victim or perpetrator is Native American.
That would have left the federal government with sole authority to prosecute such cases, and federal officials had acknowledged that they lack the resources to prosecute all the crimes that have fallen to them.
But the high court’s new ruling said the state also can step in when only the victims are tribal members.
“The State’s interest in protecting crime victims includes both Indian and non-indian victims,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote for the court.
After the 2020 decision, about 43% of Oklahoma is now considered Indian Country, and the issue of the state’s ability to prosecute those crimes “has suddenly assumed immense importance,” Kavanaugh wrote.
In a dissent joined by the court’s three liberal members, Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote that the decision “allows Oklahoma to intrude on a feature of tribal sovereignty recognized since the founding.”
The case highlighted the already strained relationship between Native tribes in Oklahoma and Republican Gov. Kevin Stitt, who has fought to return legal jurisdiction over tribal lands to the state.
Stitt himself is a citizen of the Cherokee Nation, which is the country’s largest Native American tribe by population with about 400,000 citizens, about 261,000 of whom live in Oklahoma.
Native Americans make up just under 10% of Oklahoma’s nearly 4 million people, according to the Census Bureau.
“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,” Gorsuch wrote.
Stitt said he was “heartened” by the Supreme Court’s ruling that he said “upheld that Indian Country is part of a state, not separate from it.” Mayor G.T. Bynum of Tulsa, which backed the state in the case, said the ruling helps clarify Tulsa’s legal jurisdiction. He pledged to work with the state and the tribal nations “who are our partners in building a safe city.”
To Cherokee Nation Principal Chief
Chuck Hoskin Jr., the court “ruled against legal precedent and the basic principles of congressional authority and Indian law.” He said the court “failed in its duty to honor this nation’s promises, defied Congress’s statutes and accepted the ‘lawless disregard of the Cherokee’s sovereignty,’ ” quoting in part from Gorsuch’s dissent.
The case stemmed from a state court decision to throw out the conviction against Victor Castro-huerta, who is not Native American. Castro-huerta was charged by Oklahoma prosecutors with malnourishment of his disabled 5year-old stepdaughter, a member of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians.
Castro-huerta has since pleaded guilty to a federal child neglect charge in exchange for a seven-year prison term, though he has not been formally sentenced yet.
The Supreme Court case involved the Muscogee reservation, but later rulings upheld the historic reservations of other Native American tribes in Oklahoma, including the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Quapaw and Seminole nations.
Vet who lost job can sue state
The Supreme Court on Wednesday allowed a former state trooper to sue Texas over his claim that he was forced out of his job when he returned from Army service in Iraq.
The justices ruled for Army veteran Le Roy Torres under a federal law that was enacted in 1994 in the wake of the Persian Gulf war to strengthen job protections for returning service members.
By a 5-4 vote, the high court rejected Texas’ claim that it is shielded from such lawsuits.
“Text, history, and precedent show that the States, in coming together to form a Union, agreed to sacrifice their sovereign immunity for the good of the common defense,” Justice Stephen Breyer wrote for the court.
Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by three other conservative justices, dissented, arguing that “when the States ratified the Constitution, they did not implicitly consent to private damages actions filed in their own courts – whether authorized by Congress’ war powers or any other Article I power.” Article I refers to the part of the Constitution that spells out Congress’ power.
Torres says he suffered lung damage from exposure to open burn pits on his base in Iraq. He spent a year in Iraq and was discharged as a captain after nearly 19 years in the U.S. Army Reserve.
Separately, Congress is nearing final passage of a sweeping expansion of health care and disability benefits for Iraq and Afghanistan veterans who were exposed to the open pits that were set ablaze with jet fuel to dispose of tires, batteries, medical waste and other materials.
The state and Torres dispute what happened when he returned to Texas, unable to resume his job as a state trooper because of the damage to his lungs. He eventually resigned and later filed his lawsuit. A state appellate court dismissed it, and the justices stepped in.