THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL 40 | NOVEMBER 2022 Evaluating the Jurisdiction of Municipal Courts After Castro-Huerta By Matthew Love Municipal Law This argument has been the subject of criticism4 and has not yet been addressed by the appellate courts.5 The argument was originally developed based on a prior understanding of how criminal jurisdiction within Indian country is evaluated. The United States Supreme Court recently modified that jurisdictional evaluation in Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta.6 This article seeks to provide an overview of the evaluation of the jurisdiction of municipal courts within the reservations of the Five Civilized Tribes in light of Castro-Huerta. SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OF MUNICIPAL COURTS IN INDIAN COUNTRY Subject matter jurisdiction goes to a court’s authority to hear a given type of case.7 The subject matter jurisdiction of Oklahoma municipal courts over ordinance violations is limited to offenses that are not declared to be felonies under state statutes.8 For offenses committed by an Indian in Indian country, the court’s subject matter jurisdiction is subject to the CastroHuerta preemption analysis. Indian country is a part of, not separate from, the state.9 Unless preempted, the 10th Amendment guarantees that state sovereignty includes the right to exercise the state’s inherent, preexisting jurisdiction over all its territory, including Indian country.10 The exercise of preexisting jurisdiction can be preempted if the exercise of that jurisdiction 1) has been preempted by federal law or 2) would unlawfully infringe on tribal self-government.11 To the extent the exercise of preexisting jurisdiction would unlawfully infringe on tribal self-government, jurisdiction may nevertheless be lawfully assumed if authorized by Congress. Congress has authorized the lawful assumption of jurisdiction through Public Law 28012 and, prior to that, through one-off enactments.13 Except for the Major Crimes Act,14 federal law does not preempt the state from exercising preexisting jurisdiction over crimes by or against Indians within Indian country.15 As a result, the preemption analysis turns on whether the exercise of state jurisdiction would unlawfully infringe on tribal self-government. This is evaluated utilizing the Bracker16 balancing analysis, which weighs the impact the exercise of state jurisdiction would have on tribal, federal and state interests. In Castro-Huerta, the court held that the exercise of state jurisdiction over crimes committed by non-Indians against AS POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS OF THE STATE, municipalities typically rely on the state’s sovereign authority when prosecuting ordinance violations in municipal court. Following McGirt v. Oklahoma,1 municipalities within the reservations of the Five Civilized Tribes2 may no longer rely on the state’s preexisting sovereignty when prosecuting Indians3 for ordinance violations. In response, many of those municipalities take the position that they may lawfully assume jurisdiction over local ordinance violations by Indians pursuant to §14 of the Curtis Act.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTk3MQ==