Abstract
The Supreme Court’s 2022 Castro-Huerta decision was wrong on the points it discussed. It was doubly wrong for a reason it ignored. But the latter error was shared because all briefs and the dissenting opinion ignored it as well. The question presented was whether a nineteenth-century federal Indian country statute provided for exclusive federal jurisdiction over interracial crimes, or for concurrent authority with states. The Court held that the statute allowed concurrent jurisdiction. But it ignored the fact that Congress and the Court, until fairly recently, avoided concurrent federal-state jurisdiction over crimes. Had the self-styled originalist Justices taken their theory seriously, that fact should have led to the opposite holding. But why did no one even raise this point? Of greater concern is the Court’s unexplained reliance on a potentially huge change in the law of preemption as applied in American Indian law.
Recommended Citation
Richard Collins,
Advocacy Matters,
14 Am. Indian L.J.
(2026).
Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/ailj/vol14/iss2/2
Included in
Administrative Law Commons, Agency Commons, Animal Law Commons, Bankruptcy Law Commons, Civil Law Commons, Civil Procedure Commons, Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons, Communications Law Commons, Constitutional Law Commons, Contracts Commons, Criminal Law Commons, Criminal Procedure Commons, Education Law Commons, Energy and Utilities Law Commons, Entertainment, Arts, and Sports Law Commons, Environmental Law Commons, First Amendment Commons, Fourteenth Amendment Commons, Gaming Law Commons, Human Rights Law Commons, Indigenous, Indian, and Aboriginal Law Commons, Intellectual Property Law Commons, Land Use Law Commons, Law and Gender Commons, Natural Resources Law Commons, Public Interest Commons, Tax Law Commons, Transnational Law Commons, Water Law Commons