A divided Supreme Court on Wednesday sided with officials in Oklahoma, limiting the scope of a 2020 ruling that reclassified much of the state as Indian land and halted prosecutions. In a 5 to 4 ruling criticized by tribal leaders, the court said state officials have the power to prosecute non-Indians for crimes against Native Americans on Indian soil. “The precedents of the Court prove that the Indian state is part of the territory of a state and that, unless they are prejudiced, the states have jurisdiction over crimes committed in the Indian state,” Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh wrote for the majority. With him was Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Judges Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Amy Coney Barrett. Two years ago, a court ruled that about 43 percent of Oklahoma, including the city of Tulsa, remained in detention for Native Americans. The ruling, written by Judge Neil M. Gorsuch, who disagreed with Wednesday’s ruling, has prevented state law enforcement from prosecuting Native Americans who commit crimes in India. “Complete, dysfunctional chaos”: Oklahoma wraps up after Supreme Court ruling on Indian tribes In his disagreement Wednesday, Gorsuch said the majority had misread the story and that the tribes retained power unless Congress intervened. “Indeed, a more ahistorical and erroneous statement of Indian law would be difficult to understand,” wrote Gorsus, who was joined by Judges Stephen G. Breyer, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor. “Tribes are not private organizations within state borders. Their bookings are not glorified private campsites. “Tribal sovereignty means that U.S. criminal law” can have no effect “on members of the tribe within the boundaries of the tribe unless and until Congress clearly states otherwise,” he wrote. The case involved the state prosecution of Victor Manuel Castro-Huerta, a non-Native American man who was convicted of serious neglect of his 5-year-old disabled stepdaughter, a member of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians. Castro-Huerta appealed the 35-year sentence, saying in part that the state did not have the power to prosecute him because the victim was a Native American and the alleged crime took place on Indian soil. While his appeal was pending, the Supreme Court issued two opinions that significantly increased the size of the Indian country in Oklahoma and ruled that the state had no power to prosecute a Native American who had committed a crime in an Indian country against a fellow countryman. Oklahoma told the court that the shift to tribal and federal court following the 2020 ruling forced the state to drop some prosecutions and some victims to go through second trials. Castro-Huerta later pleaded guilty in federal court and was sentenced to seven years in prison. Gov. Kevin Stitt (R) described Wednesday’s decision as a “pivotal moment” in allowing the state to oust non-Native Americans and “protect indigenous victims.” “Justice has delayed and rejected thousands of indigenous victims in our state for no reason other than their race. “Oklahoma law enforcement can now help enforce and enforce the law as much as we have for more than a century,” Stitt said in a statement. In a statement, the Muscogee (Creek) nation said Wednesday’s ruling was “a worrying step back for justice in our reservation in cases where non-indigenous criminals commit crimes against indigenous peoples”. “This will have a ripple effect across the country of India across the United States,” the tribe said, adding that “public safety would be better served by extending tribal power to prosecute any crime committed by any perpetrator within of our detention limits instead of empowering entities that have shown a lack of commitment to public safety in Indian territories. “
The court is on the side of the veteran of the war in Iraq In another 5-on-4 ruling, judges sided with an army reservist who wants to sue the state of Texas, saying he was treated inappropriately after returning from the Iraq war. The issue was federal law passed after the Gulf War banning employers from discriminating when recruiting veterans after their service. The intention of Congress was to encourage Americans to enlist in the military by protecting them when they returned to politics. However, Texas has argued that the Constitution did not allow Texas State soldier Le Roy Torres to sue in state court because states have sovereign immunity from such allegations. Judge Stephen G. Breyer wrote to the majority that he was wrong. “The text, the history and the precedent show that the states, coming together to form a Union, have agreed to sacrifice their sovereign immunity for the good of the common defense,” Breyer wrote. Courts in Texas and other states have said that Congress cannot approve such lawsuits against states in their own courts. Breyer said this would in fact give individual states too much power to back down from national war decisions. The Supreme Court examines military powers in the case of the reserve reserve “If a state – or even 25 states – decided to protest a war by refusing to hire returnees, Congress, according to Texas, would be powerless to approve private redress lawsuits against those states,” Breyer wrote. “The potentially debilitating effect on national security will not matter.” With him were Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan and Kavanaugh. Thomas wrote a disagreement almost double that of Breyer. In his view, along with Alito, Gorsuch and Barrett, states deserved more autonomy. “The constitutional text, history and precedent show that when the states ratified the Constitution, they did not tacitly consent to private damages lawsuits filed in their own courts – whether endorsed by congressional military powers or any other Article I authority.” , wrote Thomas. . Torres was a reserve in the army that was deployed in 2007 in Iraq, where he suffered lung damage from exposure to burns during his tenure. When he returned to Texas, he could no longer perform any of the soldier’s duties and sought refuge. He and the Texas Department of Public Safety disagreed over whether suitable housing was offered, but Torres resigned and later sued for $ 5 million under federal law. He and his wife then formed an organization that supports members of the service who are injured by toxic exposure. The Biden government has defended the law to provide labor protection to reservists and members of the National Guard on which the military depends as recruits. The case is Torres v. Texas Department of Public Safety.
