成人X站

In a ruling that could have cascading effects on the indigenous tribes of Washington state, the U.S. Supreme Court has that the federal government and the states have select, concurrent jurisdiction over Indian country, with dissenters arguing that hundreds of years of legal precedent governing the rule of law on tribal lands have been upended.

In 2015, Victor Manuel Castro-Huerta was charged by the State of Oklahoma with child neglect of his Cherokee Indian step-daughter while living in Tulsa. Following a change in federal classification of eastern Oklahoma鈥檚 Creek Nation reservation, Castro-Huerta appealed, arguing that only the federal government had the authority to prosecute his case.

In a 5-4 ruling on Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta, majority opinion author Justice Brett Kavanaugh held that a state can prosecute crimes committed by non-Indians against Indians on reservations, writing 鈥渁s a matter of state sovereignty, a State has jurisdiction over all of its territory, including Indian country.鈥�

Authoring the minority opinion, Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote, 鈥淣ative American Tribes retain their sovereignty unless and until Congress ordains otherwise, referencing legal precedent in which the Supreme Court rejected the state of Georgia and former President Andrew Jackson鈥檚 attempt to 鈥渇lout鈥� state authority over tribal lands as 鈥渁 show of force.鈥�

鈥淲here this Court once stood firm, today it wilts. After the Cherokee鈥檚 exile to what became Oklahoma, the federal government promised the Tribe that it would remain forever free from interference from state authorities. Only the Tribe or the federal government could punish crimes by or against tribal members on tribal lands 鈥� Now, the State seeks to claim for itself [that] power.鈥�

SCOTUS limits EPA鈥檚 ability to regulate emissions in 鈥榮tunning reversal of environmental laws鈥�

As for how the ruling will affect Washington state鈥檚 tribes, the ruling is colored by which grants the state select authority to prosecute crimes committed on tribal land provided the tribe in question has granted consent. Under Public Law 280, the state鈥檚 authority was explicitly delineated, whereas now the state and the federal government have concurrent jurisdiction over tribal land.

The local impact of Castro-Huerta will be contingent on how the law is implemented in Washington state.

鈥淲hen we all went to bed on Tuesday, the law was one thing. And when we woke up on Wednesday, it was new, and it’s changed the status quo that has been in place in Indian country for hundreds of years,鈥� Anthony Broadman, a partner with Indigenous rights law firm Galanda Broadman, told MyNorthwest.

鈥淣ationwide, this is a significant change for tribal sovereignty, because we’ve essentially invited states into another area of criminal jurisdiction.鈥�

鈥淔ederal Indian law looks at sovereignty as the idea that tribal people can make their own laws and be ruled by their own laws. This decision allows for state encroachment in an area that previously the federal government had filled. Whenever you invite states into areas that they had not previously occupied, it diminishes tribal sovereignty.鈥�

Broadman claims that no current cases in Washington will be immediately impacted by the ruling because the Supreme Court鈥檚 decision represents such an abrupt heel-turn in indigenous law.

鈥淭here isn’t a case out there where a state had claimed concurrent jurisdiction 鈥� because until Wednesday, they simply didn’t have concurrent jurisdiction,鈥� Broadman continued.

鈥淭he way that this case will be tested in Washington would be for 鈥� the state to assert concurrent jurisdiction with the federal government over a particular crime. And if it moves forward with that prosecution, that would be the implementation of Castro 鈥� But the reason why I don’t think we’re there yet is because of Wednesday鈥檚 large change.鈥�