This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve whether a State may prosecute non‑Indians for crimes against Indians in Indian country.
The Court held that Indian country within a State’s territory is part of the State, so State jurisdiction exists unless preempted.
The Court concluded that the General Crimes Act does not preempt State jurisdiction over crimes committed by non‑Indians against Indians in Indian country.
Justice Gorsuch authored a dissent warning that tribal sovereignty endures unless Congress expressly alters it.
Background and question before the Court
According to Petitioner, the case asks whether a State has authority to prosecute non‑Indians who commit crimes in Indian country, regardless of whether the victim is a non‑Indian or an Indian.
What each side argues
Victor Manuel Castro‑Huerta
According to Victor Manuel Castro-Huerta, argued that the Federal Government has exclusive jurisdiction to prosecute him, a non‑Indian, for a crime against his stepdaughter, a Cherokee Indian, in Indian country, and that the State therefore lacks jurisdiction.
Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals
According to Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, agreed with Castro‑Huerta and vacated his conviction.
Petitioner (Oral Argument)
According to Petitioner, asserted that a State has inherent sovereign authority to punish crimes committed within its borders and that no federal law preempts that authority for crimes committed by non‑Indians.
According to Petitioner, stated that the General Crimes Act merely incorporates federal substantive law for federal enclaves and does not address State jurisdiction; Public Law 280 expanded State jurisdiction rather than divesting it.
State of Oklahoma
According to State of Oklahoma, requested that the Court provide concurrent jurisdiction for the State with the Federal Government, arguing that Indian country is within the State’s normal jurisdictional framework.
United States (Amicus Curiae)
According to Edwin S. Kneedler (United States, amicus curiae), according to United States, as amicus curiae, argued that the General Crimes Act provides exclusive Federal jurisdiction over crimes by non‑Indians against Indians in Indian country.
Oklahoma District Attorneys Association (Amicus)
According to Oklahoma District Attorneys Association, described the State’s prosecutorial authority as an important tool for law enforcement.
What happened at oral argument
Justice Thomas asked why the Court is hearing the first case on jurisdiction over non‑Indians committing crimes against Indians after many years.
According to Justice Sotomayor, she questioned whether the federal government can preempt State law at all in this context.
What the Court decided
The Court held that Indian country within a State’s territory is part of the State, so State jurisdiction exists unless preempted.
The Court concluded that the General Crimes Act does not preempt State jurisdiction over crimes by non‑Indians against Indians in Indian country.
Justice Gorsuch authored a dissent warning that tribal sovereignty endures unless Congress expressly changes it.
Why it matters
The Court’s decision in McGirt, as applied here, could result in less protection for tribal victims of serious crimes.
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 4229f52ef8dd191ce5c3-r1-4a468821a41d0eb3.pdfopinion
- 6a42f22b9300470eddbb-r1-a3f7c4ce621e18dc.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 28, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.