On Wednesday, the US Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta, a case related to the court’s 2020 decision that eliminated Oklahoma’s jurisdiction over many crimes in much of the state that remain classified as reservations. In 2015, Víctor Manuel Castro-Huerta, who is not Native American, was convicted of child neglect and sentenced to 35 years in prison. Castro-Huerta’s stepdaughter, the victim, is a member of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians and the crime was committed on the Cherokee Reservation. Castro-Huerta contested his conviction, arguing that Oklahoma could not prosecute him for a crime committed on Native American land. without federal approval under the Supreme Court’s 2020 decision in McGirt v. Oklahoma. Oklahoma argued that McGirt involved a Native American defendant, while Castro-Huerta is not a Native American, so McGirt did not bar the state’s prosecution of him. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals overturned Castro-Huerta’s conviction because of the location of the crime. The appeals court held that McGirt covered crimes committed by anyone on Native American land. Oklahoma then appealed to the Supreme Court in September 2021, asking it to consider whether a state has the authority to prosecute non-Indigenous people who commit crimes against Indians on Native American land. american lands. On January 21, the Supreme Court granted certiorari. During oral arguments, the justices seemed interested in keeping intact the general rule that states do not hold powers in Native American lands without authorization from Congress. Judge Gorsuch pointed out to Oklahoma attorney Kannon Shanmugam that the United States made promises through treaties with the Cherokee Nation regarding the duty to protect. The duty of care, generally known as the “trust responsibility,” favors deference to the government of the Cherokee Nation. Judge Gorsuch also commented on other federal promises, including that “no other sovereign” would have power over Cherokee lands and that the Cherokee government must consent before state powers apply. Justice Breyer asked why Oklahoma couldn’t just go to Congress for help. , since all other states act on the assumption that state jurisdiction is prohibited without authorization from Congress. Justice Sotomayor joined Justice Breyer in questioning in stating that many states have refused to exercise jurisdiction over Native American land in part because of costly obligations, with little or no federal money to comply. Justice Sotomayor commented that if Oklahoma prevailed, every state would be shackled with an “unfunded injunction.” A court decision is expected in mid-June.