CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1Indigenous Peoples' Rights and LawAmerican Constitutional Law and PoliticsJudicial and Constitutional Studies

Dividing Authority Three Ways: Federal–Tribal–State Relations after Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta

Open access
Carlson, Kirsten Matoy·2023·Publius: The Journal of Federalism
DOI 10.1093/publius/pjad020
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta has the potential to rework the long-standing division of authority among federal, state, and tribal governments. In issuing its decision in this June 2022 case, the majority departed from its previous decisions and congressional policy by enabling state governments to exercise criminal authority over non-Indians in Indian Country. This article examines the implications of Castro-Huerta for federal, tribal, and state governments on the ground in Indian Country as well as for scholarship and teaching on federal–tribal–state relations.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This article examines how Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta reworks federal–tribal–state relations by enabling states to exercise criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians in Indian Country without tribal consent, departing from longstanding federal Indian law principles and congressional policy. It assesses consequences for federal, tribal, and state governments and argues that more research is needed on tribal–state relations.

Key findings

  • Castro-Huerta announced a new default rule: states may exercise criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians in Indian Country unless Congress preempts them, contrary to McGirt, Worcester v. Georgia, and the prior presumption that Congress must expressly authorize state authority in Indian Country; the Court extended this rule to all states, not just Oklahoma.
  • The decision may create new state incursions on tribal sovereignty, intergovernmental conflict, and jurisdictional confusion, while also creating incentives for reduced federal funding and resources for Indian Country criminal investigations and prosecutions.
  • Tribal–state relations had increasingly moved toward cooperation through intergovernmental agreements, lobbying, state legislation, and tribal–state court forums, but Castro-Huerta may chill cooperation; after McGirt, Oklahoma refused to renew intergovernmental agreements and fewer cross-deputization agreements were entered.
  • The decision provides twenty-six states an opportunity to exercise concurrent criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians committing crimes against Indians in Indian Country, yet only five states—Texas, Louisiana, Kansas, Virginia, and Nebraska—supported Oklahoma, and three of those already exercise some criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians in Indian Country. Congress appropriated an additional $70 million in 2021 for Oklahoma federal law enforcement and the Bureau of Indian Affairs received an additional $62 million in FY2022.

Methods

  • This is a legal and policy analysis, not an empirical study; it examines Supreme Court decisions in McGirt v. Oklahoma and Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta, foundational federal Indian law principles, and congressional statutes including Public Law 280, the Indian Civil Rights Act, VAWA, and the Tribal Law and Order Act.
  • It synthesizes secondary scholarship, government reports, congressional hearing statements, news reports, and existing empirical studies to assess implications for federal, tribal, and state governments and to identify future research directions.

Limitations

  • The paper states that tribal–state relations remain understudied, that the prevalence of tribal–state and tribal–local agreements is unknown with no comprehensive database, and that it is hard to predict how governments will respond to Castro-Huerta; it calls for more research on intergovernmental agreements, state legislative and executive policymaking, and tribal engagement in state politics.
  • The text makes evident that the analysis is qualitative and relies heavily on secondary sources, legal doctrine, and anecdotal reports, especially from Oklahoma, rather than original systematic data or causal testing.
  • The article was published in 2023, soon after the 2022 decision, so many long-term consequences remain speculative and are framed as potential or uncertain rather than demonstrated outcomes.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/publius/pjad020

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

14 of 123 cited sources checked · 7 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Interpretationreasoning

    The reframing of the question allows courts to read congressional silence as enabling state governments to encroach on and undermine tribal sovereignty.

    “This change in the question asked allows courts to read congressional silence as enabling state governments to encroach on and undermine tribal sovereignty.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Carlson 2022a

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Frickey 2005, 483
  • Premisecitation

    State governments have no authority to regulate Indian affairs absent an express congressional delegation or grant.

    “State governments have no authority to regulate Indian affairs absent an express congressional delegation or grant (Cohen 1941;Getches 2001;Newton 2012;Skibine 2005).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Cohen 1941

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Getches 2001 source

      In the section labeled “2001]” (page unavailable), Getches says that Indians on a reservation are generally immune from state law, supporting the claim’s general direction. But the same section says that, absent governing acts of Congress, state action concerning non-Indians is assessed for infringement of tribal self-government. It does not make express congressional delegation the sole basis for state authority. (LLM, conf=0.86)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Newton 2012

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Premisecitation

    Indian Nations retain powers unless Congress has expressed clear and plain intent to abrogate them.

    “Indian Nations retain powers unless Congress has expressed clear and plain intent to abrogate them; and”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Cohen 1941

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Getches 2001 source
    • cites Newton 2012

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Interpretationcitation

    The Castro-Huerta decision may leave lower federal courts confused about when to defer to congressional policies and statutes, how to apply the canons of statutory construction, and how to conduct preemption analysis in an Indian law context.

    “It may leave lower federal courts confused about when to defer to congressional policies and statutes, how to apply the canons of statutory construction, and how to conduct preemption analysis in an Indian law context”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Fletcher 2020, 130 source

      In “A. Structural Biases,” the paper describes confusion in lower courts over Indian law; in “Toward a Rule of Interpreting Indian Affairs Texts,” it says courts apply interpretive canons inconsistently. It also discusses preemption disputes, but does not address Castro-Huerta or say that decision may cause confusion about congressional deference, canons, or preemption. (LLM, conf=0.86)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Getches 1996, 1612-1614 source
  • Interpretationcitation

    The Supreme Court has yet to adopt a consistent approach to federal Indian law.

    “The Supreme Court, however, has yet to adopt a consistent approach to federal Indian law.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Fletcher 2020 source
    • cites Frickey 2005
    • cites Getches 1996 source
  • May combine two claims. 53
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 60

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The U.S. Constitution gives Congress full control over Indian affairs, including authority to limit tribal powers.

    “The U.S. Constitution gives Congress full control over Indian affairs-including authority to limit tribal powers;”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Cohen 1941

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Getches 2001 source
    • cites Newton 2012

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Tribes are governments with inherent sovereign powers, not delegated or granted by the United States.

    “Tribes are governments with inherent sovereign powers, not delegated or granted by the United States;”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Cohen 1941

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Getches 2001 source
    • cites Newton 2012

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    The federal government holds responsibilities to Indian tribes and individual Indians known as the trust relationship.

    “The federal government holds responsibilities to Indian tribes and individual Indians known as the trust relationship;”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Cohen 1941

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Getches 2001 source

      In the 'BEYOND INDIANV LAW' section (page unavailable), the paper describes a 'unique trust relationship between the United States and the Indians'; elsewhere it says terminated tribes lost their trust relationship with the United States. These passages support the relationship's existence, but our copy does not explicitly define it as federal responsibilities to both tribes and individual Indians. (LLM, conf=0.82)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Newton 2012

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The reframing abandons the presumption that Congress must take clear and express action to grant state authority in Indian Country and increasingly places the burden on tribal governments and Native organizations to convince Congress to clarify its position.

    “It abandons the presumption that Congress has to take clear and express action to grant state authority in Indian Country and increasingly places the burden on tribal governments and Native organizations to convince Congress to clarify its position on Indian affairs in legislation”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Carlson 2022a

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Frickey 2005, 483

      Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    In some cases, the Supreme Court follows the elected branches and upholds tribal sovereignty, while in others it issues opinions that do not treat tribal governments as separate, sovereign entities.

    “In some cases, it follows the popularly elected branches and upholds tribal sovereignty while in others, it issues opinions that do not treat tribal governments as separate, sovereign entities”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Fletcher 2020 source

      In “Declining to Engage with the Text: Tribal Powers Cases,” the paper says Supreme Court precedent generally preserves tribal powers unless Congress or the tribe validly divests them. In the passage labeled “Textualism’s Gaze 133,” it also describes Court opinions calling tribes “quasi-sovereign nations” or denying their sovereignty. These passages support the contrast in the claim, but do not establish that the Court follows the popularly elected branches in some cases. (LLM, conf=0.79)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Frickey 2005
    • cites Getches 1996 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    The Court's decisions have added a layer of inconsistency and unpredictability, making federal Indian law confusing and hard to navigate, especially for judges unfamiliar with Native communities and the history of federal-tribal-state relations.

    “The Court's decisions have added a layer of inconsistency and unpredictability, making federal Indian law confusing and hard to navigate, especially for judges, who tend to be unfamiliar with Native communities and the history of”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Frickey 1999, 4-5 source
    • cites Getches 2001, 275 source

      Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites Skibine 2000, 267

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    The federal government increased its investigation and prosecution of Indian Country crimes and sent additional resources to support federal and tribal law enforcement in Oklahoma after McGirt.

    “The federal government increased its investigation and prosecution of Indian Country crimes and sent additional resources to support federal and tribal law enforcement in Oklahoma after McGirt”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Taylor 2022

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingcitation

    The Bureau of Indian Affairs received an additional $62 million in Fiscal Year 2022 to increase public safety initiatives.

    “Similarly, the Bureau of Indian Affairs received an additional $62 million in Fiscal Year 2022 to increase public safety initiatives”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites 2022 Consolidated Appropriations Act, P.L. 117-103

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingcitation

    In 2021, Congress appropriated an additional $70 million for Oklahoma's three U.S. attorney's offices, the FBI, the Drug Enforcement Office, and the U.S. Marshal's Service.

    “In 2021, Congress appropriated an additional $70 million for the state's three U.S. attorney's offices, the FBI, the Drug Enforcement Office, and the U.S.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Casteel 2022

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given

    The Castro-Huerta decision did not mention tribal sovereignty once or restrict the criminal jurisdiction of tribal governments over Natives recognized in McGirt.

    “even though it did not mention tribal sovereignty once or restrict the criminal jurisdiction of tribal governments over Natives recognized in McGirt.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Findingnone given

    Of the five states supporting Oklahoma, three (Kansas, Nebraska, and Texas) already exercise some criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians in Indian Country.

    “Of these, three (Kansas, Nebraska, and Texas) already exercise some criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians in Indian Country.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given

    The Castro-Huerta decision allows states to exercise concurrent criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians and does not require states to seek tribal consent like P.L. 280 does.

    “The Castro-Huerta decision allows states to exercise concurrent criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians and does not require states to seek tribal consent like P.L. 280 does.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Findingnone given

    In the past fifty years, no state has asked for and assumed jurisdiction in Indian Country under P.L. 280.

    “In the past fifty years, no state has asked for and assumed jurisdiction in Indian Country under P.L. 280.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Findingnone given

    Some states, like Iowa and Washington, have retroceded jurisdiction, including criminal jurisdiction, back to the federal government under P.L. 280.

    “Rather some states, like Iowa and Washington, have retroceded jurisdiction, including criminal jurisdiction back to the federal government under P.L. 280.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    The federal and state governments differ in the selection of cases for investigation and prosecution, the standards they use in charging crimes, and their policies on plea bargaining and sentencing.

    “The federal and state governments differ in the selection of cases for investigation and prosecution, the standards they use in charging crimes, and their policies on plea bargaining and sentencing.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [18]

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingnone given

    Only five states-Texas, Louisiana, Kansas, Virginia, and Nebraska-supported Oklahoma in its arguments before the Supreme Court.

    “Yet only five states-Texas, Louisiana, Kansas, Virginia, and Nebraska-supported the state of Oklahoma in its arguments before the Supreme Court.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Premisenone given

    Congress experimented with granting states jurisdiction over Indians in the 1950s, but has shifted away from granting states authority in Indian Country without tribal consent since 1968.

    “Congress experimented with granting states jurisdiction over Indians in the 1950s, but it has shifted away from granting states authority in Indian Country without tribal consent since 1968.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Castro-Huerta may create new opportunities for state incursions on tribal sovereignty, conflicts between federal, tribal, and state governments over authority in Indian Country, and confusion over which government has authority on tribal lands.

    “It may create new opportunities for state incursions on tribal sovereignty, conflicts between the federal, tribal, and state governments over authority in Indian Country, and confusion over which government has authority on tribal lands.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisereasoning

    The Constitution gives the federal government exclusive authority for dealing with Native Nations, and states have authority in Indian Country only if Congress clearly gives it to them.

    “The Constitution gives the federal government exclusive authority for dealing with Native Nations and states only have authority in Indian Country if Congress clearly gives it to them.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    In Worcester v. Georgia, the Supreme Court interpreted the Constitution as giving jurisdiction over Indian affairs exclusively to the federal government and confirmed that state law had no force in Indian Country without specific congressional authorization.

    “In that case, the Court interpreted the Constitution as giving jurisdiction over Indian affairs exclusively to the federal government and confirmed that state law had no force in Indian Country without specific congressional authorization.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Worcester v. Georgia

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Premisenone given

    With few limited exceptions, federal courts and congressional policies have affirmed this federal-tribal-state arrangement countless times in the past two centuries.

    “With a few limited exceptions, federal courts and congressional policies have affirmed this federal-tribal-state arrangement countless times in the past two centuries.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Since the 1970s, Congress and the executive branch have adopted and implemented the Tribal Self-Determination Policy, which empowers tribal governments to develop and implement programs by allowing federal money to flow directly to tribal governments, bypassing the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the states.

    “Since the 1970s, Congress and the executive branch have adopted and implemented the Tribal Self-Determination Policy.This policy empowers tribal governments to develop and implement programs by allowing federal money to flow directly to tribal governments, bypassing the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the states (25 U.S.C. § 450a).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites 25 U.S.C. § 450a

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Congress has restored inherent tribal criminal jurisdiction over nonmember Indians accused of crimes and over specific crimes committed by non-Indians against Indians in Indian Country.

    “Congress has restored inherent tribal criminal jurisdiction over nonmember Indians accused of crimes (25 U.S.C. § 1301) and over specific crimes committed by non-Indians against Indians in Indian Country (Pub.L. No. 113-4)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites 25 U.S.C. § 1301

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Pub.L. No. 113-4

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    States' early attempts to govern Indians led to violence and encouraged the drafters to grant all powers over Indian affairs to the federal government in the Constitution.

    “States' early attempts to govern Indians led to violence and encouraged the drafters to grant all powers over Indian affairs to the federal government in the Constitution (Fletcher 2012).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Fletcher 2012

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    The McGirt decision held that the state of Oklahoma could not continue to prosecute crimes committed by tribal citizens on tribal land.

    “The McGirt decision held that the state of Oklahoma could not continue to prosecute crimes committed by tribal citizens on tribal land.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Tribal-state relations have evolved in the past fifty years; the two no longer operate in exclusively separate spheres.

    “Tribal-state relations have evolved in the past fifty years.The two no longer operate in exclusively separate spheres (Pommersheim 1991).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Pommersheim 1991

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning

    These changes in the legal framework add complexity to already complicated jurisdictional rules in Indian Country.

    “These changes in the legal framework for understanding federal-tribal-state relations add complexity to already complicated jurisdictional rules in Indian Country.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Premisereasoning

    Tribal, state, and local governments regularly interact with one another through intergovernmental agreements, lobbying, and tribal-state court forums.

    “Tribal, state, and local governments regularly interact with one another through intergovernmental agreements, lobbying, and tribal-state court forums.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    The McGirt decision ended the confusion over criminal jurisdiction when it clarified that much of the land in eastern Oklahoma is tribal land, subject to federal and tribal criminal jurisdiction.

    “The McGirt decision ended the confusion over criminal jurisdiction when it clarified that much of the land in eastern Oklahoma is tribal land, subject to federal and tribal criminal jurisdiction.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Empirical studies have repeatedly shown that the adoption, implementation, and expansion of the Tribal Self-Determination Policy is a central causal factor in the economic and social renaissance in tribal communities.

    “Empirical studies have repeatedly shown that its adoption, implementation, and expansion is a central causal factor in the economic and social renaissance in tribal communities (Cornell and Kalt 2010).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Cornell and Kalt 2010 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Premisenone given

    In the 1950s, Congress adopted the termination policy, which sought to end the government-to-government relationship between tribes and the federal government and to assimilate individual tribal citizens.

    “In the 1950s, Congress adopted the termination policy, which sought to end the government-to-government relationship between tribes and the federal government and to assimilate individual tribal citizens.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Premisenone given

    In 1790, the first Congress enacted the Trade and Intercourse Act, which confirmed federal power over almost all aspects of Indian affairs.

    “In 1790, the first Congress enacted the Trade and Intercourse Act, which confirmed federal power over almost all aspects of Indian affairs.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Congress has not terminated a single tribal government or enacted any pan-tribal bills proposing to strip tribal governments of jurisdiction in the past fifty years.

    “Congress has not terminated a single tribal government or enacted any pan-tribal bills proposing to strip tribal governments of jurisdiction in the past fifty years (Carlson 2022a).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Carlson 2022a

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    In creating a new default rule, the Supreme Court departed from its decision in McGirt and the centuries-old presumption that Congress has acted expressly and unequivocally to allow state authority in Indian Country.

    “In creating a new default rule, the Supreme Court departed from its decision in McGirt and the centuries old presumption that Congress has acted expressly and unequivocally to allow state authority in Indian Country”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Beetso 2022

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Carlson 2022a

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Fletcher 2022

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    In its decision in Castro-Huerta, the Supreme Court largely accepted the state's arguments and departed from its decision in McGirt, which reiterated the longstanding legal principle that states can only exercise authority over Native Nations when Congress expressly permits it.

    “In its decision in Castro-Huerta, the Supreme Court largely accepted the state's arguments and departed from its decision in McGirt, which reiterated the longstanding legal principle that states can only exercise authority over Native Nations when Congress expressly permits it.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisenone given

    Article I, Section 8 allocates authority over Indian affairs to and designates Congress as the body to protect tribal sovereignty.

    “Article I, Section 8 allocates authority over Indian affairs to and designates Congress as the body to protect tribal sovereignty.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    If the alleged offender is non-Indian and the victim is Indian, the federal government has jurisdiction, unless it has statutorily delegated such authority to a state.

    “If the alleged offender is non-Indian and the victim is Indian, the federal government has jurisdiction (18 U.S.C. § 1152; 18 U.S.C. § 1153), unless it has statutorily delegated such authority to a state.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites 18 U.S.C. § 1152

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites 18 U.S.C. § 1153

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Congress granted six states some civil and criminal jurisdiction over Indian Country in Public Law 83-280.

    “It granted six states some civil and criminal jurisdiction over Indian Country in Public Law 83-280 (Public Law 280) (Pub.L. 83-280 [1953]; Goldberg 2010).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Pub.L. 83-280

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Goldberg 2010

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    The Castro-Huerta decision invites state law enforcement onto the reservation and creates a presumption that they have a right to be there making arrests, stopping people, doing investigations, issuing subpoenas, and searching houses.

    “It invites state law enforcement onto the reservation and creates a presumption that they have a right to be there making arrests, stopping people, doing investigations, issuing subpoenas, and searching houses”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Brewer 2022

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The Castro-Huerta decision may undermine tribal sovereignty because, contrary to federal law, it allows states to exercise authority in Indian Country without tribal consent.

    “First, the decision may undermine tribal sovereignty because contrary to federal law, it allows states to exercise authority in Indian Country without tribal consent.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationnone given

    The elected political branches have the power to reassert their constitutional position as the primary lawmakers in Indian affairs.

    “The elected political branches have the power to reassert their constitutional position as the primary lawmakers in this area.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

    Premisenone given

    The federal government has a duty based on treaties and its trust relationship with Native Nations to protect them from non-Native perpetrators.

    “Moreover, it has a duty based on treaties and its trust relationship with Native Nations to protect them from non-Native perpetrators.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The Court's failure to mention tribal sovereignty may foreshadow its denigration and empower states to make more claims about their ability to exercise authority in Indian Country.

    “Second, the court's failure to mention tribal sovereignty may foreshadow its denigration and empower states to make more claims about their ability to exercise authority in Indian Country.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The Castro-Huerta decision allocates more power to the states against the express wishes of Congress, which has limited state authority in Indian Country absent express tribal consent.

    “Moreover, it does so against the express wishes of Congress, which has limited state authority in Indian Country absent express tribal consent.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    The Castro-Huerta opinion assumes that the states have absorbed tribal governments and their peoples.

    “It assumes that the states have absorbed tribal governments and their peoples.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The Court's decisions in McGirt and Castro-Huerta suggest that the tension in federal Indian law remains and will continue to affect federal-tribal-state relations.

    “The Court's decisions in McGirt and Castro-Huerta suggest that this tension remains and will continue to affect federaltribal-state relations.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The Castro-Huerta decision does not explicitly curtail tribal sovereignty or say anything about tribal sovereignty at all, but it may still have tremendous implications for tribal sovereignty.

    “The decision in Castro-Huerta does not explicitly curtail tribal sovereignty or say anything about tribal sovereignty at all, but it may still have tremendous implications for tribal sovereignty.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    The federal government will see some decrease in cases as Oklahoma reclaims cases involving non-Indians, but it will retain criminal jurisdiction over crimes committed by tribal citizens.

    “The federal government will see some decrease as the state of Oklahoma reclaims cases involving non-Indians, but, like tribal governments, it will retain criminal jurisdiction over crimes committed by tribal citizens.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    In the past fifty years, the elected branches have committed to recognizing tribal sovereignty because empirical data shows that empowering tribal governments leads to sustained economic development and improved social conditions for both Natives and non-Natives.

    “In the past fifty years, the elected branches have committed to recognizing tribal sovereignty because empirical data shows that empowering tribal governments leads to sustained economic development and improved social conditions for both Natives and non-Natives”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Cornell and Kalt 2010 source
    • cites Kalt 2001

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Medford, Kalt, and Taylor 2022

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Collaboration among state and tribal governments is even more key to ensuring that alleged criminals are held responsible.

    “which makes collaboration among state and tribal governments even more key to ensuring that alleged criminals are held responsible.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Cooperation among local, state, and tribal governments ensures accountability and that cases are adequately investigated and prosecuted.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    If processes for effective cooperation and coordination do not develop, both governments could assume that the other was acting when in reality neither is investigating and prosecuting crimes against tribal citizens, causing cases to fall through the cracks.

    “If processes for effective cooperation and coordination do not develop, both governments could assume that the other was acting when in reality neither of them are investigating and prosecuting crimes against tribal citizens in Indian Country.As a result, cases will fall through the cracks, leaving tribal citizens and governments without recourse.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    According to the Indian Law and Order Commission (2013), calls for service go unanswered, victims are left unattended, criminals are undeterred, and Tribal governments are left stranded.

    “According to the Indian Law and Order Commission (2013), “[C]alls for service go unanswered, victims are left unattended, criminals are undeterred, and Tribal governments are left stranded.””
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Indian Law and Order Commission 2013

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Effective and efficient cooperation among state, federal, and tribal governments could alleviate many of the potential problems that arise from concurrent jurisdiction and ensure access to justice for tribal citizens.

    “Effective and efficient cooperation among state, federal, and tribal governments could alleviate many of the potential problems that arise from concurrent jurisdiction and ensure access to justice for tribal citizens.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Tribal governments often govern more effectively than the neighboring state and local governments, and their policies and programs benefit nontribal citizens in Indian Country and the surrounding region.

    “Tribal governments often govern more effectively than the neighboring state and local governments.Their policies and programs benefit nontribal citizens in Indian Country and the surrounding region”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Fletcher 2021

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Medford, Kalt, and Taylor 2022

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    The Court's decision may not undermine existing relationships between local and tribal law enforcement or affect criminal investigations and prosecutions very much.

    “The Court's decision may not undermine these existing relationships or affect criminal investigations and prosecutions very much.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    As a result, tribal citizens may not experience the same treatment or may have access to a fuller range of services depending on which government handles their case.

    “As a result, tribal citizens may not experience the same treatment or may have access to a fuller range of services depending on which government handles their case.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Federal laws placing trust responsibility and coordination requirements on federal prosecutors do not extend to states, and the lack of procedures to ensure state accountability could harm tribal citizens.

    “But these laws do not extend to states and the lack of procedures to ensure state accountability could harm tribal citizens.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The decision in Castro-Huerta could further undermine efforts at cooperative federalism among state and tribal governments as well as good governance and public safety in Indian Country if state and/or local governments think they do not have to coordinate or cooperate with tribal governments.

    “The decision in Castro-Huerta could further undermine efforts at cooperative federalism among state and tribal governments as well as good governance and public safety in Indian Country if state and/or local governments think they do not have to coordinate or cooperate with tribal governments.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Tribal leaders and citizens have long complained of and scholars have documented the failure of states with criminal jurisdiction in Indian Country under P.L. 280 to respond to crimes committed against tribal citizens.

    “Tribal leaders and citizens have long complained of and scholars have documented the failure of states with criminal jurisdiction in Indian Country under P.L. 280 to respond to crimes committed against tribal citizens”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Goldberg and Champagne 2012, 2006

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The Petite Policy gives federal prosecutors discretion and advises the preclusion of federal prosecution after state prosecution of the same crime unless the matter leaves a substantial federal interest unvindicated and the evidence will probably lead to and sustain a conviction.

    “The Petite Policy gives federal prosecutors discretion and advises the preclusion of federal prosecution after state prosecution of the same crime unless the matter leaves a substantial federal interest unvindicated and the evidence will probably lead to and sustain a conviction”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Leeds et al. 2023

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites U.S. Department of Justice n.d.

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The Castro-Huerta decision limits the ability of tribal governments to pursue retrocession and provide safety for their own citizens.

    “Moreover, it limits the ability of tribal governments to pursue retrocession and provide safety for their own citizens.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    P.L. 280 has not reduced crime rates in Indian Country or improved access to justice for tribal citizens.

    “As a result, P.L. 280 has not reduced crime rates in Indian Country (Indian Law and Order Commission 2013) or improved access to justice for tribal citizens.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Indian Law and Order Commission 2013

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Premisenone given

    The Supreme Court has upheld state laws encroaching on tribal sovereignty in the past.

    “The Supreme Court has upheld state laws encroaching on tribal sovereignty in the past.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    The Court's decision reveals how little knowledge currently exists on tribal-state relations and how hard it is to predict how tribal and state governments will respond to a shift in the law governing their relationships with one another.

    “The Court's decision reveals how little knowledge currently exists on tribal-state relations and how hard it is to predict how tribal and state governments will respond to a shift in the law governing their relationships with one another.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    Other states have adopted more conflictual positions toward tribal governments and may seek to undermine tribal sovereignty.

    “Other states have adopted more conflictual positions toward tribal governments and may seek to undermine tribal sovereignty.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    Intergovernmental agreements remain understudied even though tribal governments often interact with state and local governments through them.

    “Intergovernmental agreements remain understudied even though tribal governments often interact with state and local governments through them.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning

    State responses will vary greatly by the state.

    “State responses will vary greatly by the state.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Exactly how federal-tribal-state relations develop post-Castro-Huerta depends greatly on each of the governments involved.

    “Exactly how federal-tribal-state relations develop post-Castro-Huerta depends greatly on each of the governments involved.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    States may also seek to limit tribal civil jurisdiction over tribal citizens or extend their own jurisdiction.

    “States may also seek to limit tribal civil jurisdiction over tribal citizens or extend their own jurisdiction.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    Federal-tribal-state relations are in flux.

    “Federal-tribal-state relations are in flux.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisenone given

    The state of Oklahoma has suggested that it has jurisdiction over tribal citizens within the reservation until Congress preempts its jurisdiction under Castro-Huerta.

    “The state of Oklahoma has also suggested that it has jurisdiction over tribal citizens within the reservation until Congress preempts its jurisdiction under Castro-Huerta.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning

    They may decide they do not want to take on criminal jurisdiction in Indian Country, especially if tribal governments oppose it.

    “They may decide they do not want to take on criminal jurisdiction in Indian Country, especially if tribal governments oppose it.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Tribal governments have developed expertise in engaging with the federal government.

    “Tribal governments have developed expertise in engaging with the federal government (Carlson 2018;Evans 2011).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Carlson 2018

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Evans 2011 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    The trend has been away from state jurisdiction and toward increasing tribal criminal jurisdiction over all people in Indian Country.

    “The trend has been away from state jurisdiction and toward increasing tribal criminal jurisdiction over all people in Indian Country.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    In other cases, local governments may not work with tribal governments even if the Governor or Attorney General wants them to.

    “In other cases, local governments may not work with tribal governments even if the Governor or Attorney General wants them to.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    If states aggressively seek to increase their authority in Indian Country, it may undermine tribal and federal sovereignty and make tribal-state relations more conflictual.

    “If states aggressively seek to increase their authority in Indian Country, it may undermine tribal and federal sovereignty and make tribal-state relations more conflictual.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    Previous studies have attempted to quantify and understand the nature, scope, and negotiation of intergovernmental agreements among tribal and state governments, but many of these do not reflect recent trends and need updating.

    “Previous studies have attempted to quantify and understand the nature, scope, and negotiation of intergovernmental agreements among tribal and state governments (Conner and Witt 2016;Pommersheim 1991), but many of these do not reflect recent trends and need updating.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Conner and Witt 2016 source
    • cites Pommersheim 1991

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    It will undoubtedly affect how relationships among tribal, federal, and state governments evolve in the future.

    “It will undoubtedly affect how relationships among tribal, federal, and state governments evolve in the future.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning

    The Court's decision in Castro-Huerta stands in stark contrast to this trend.

    “The Court's decision in Castro-Huerta stands in stark contrast to this trend.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S1 (asserted), S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Some scholars have predicted that Oklahoma will assert the authority to tax income earned by tribal citizens inside the reservation in pending tax cases even though the Supreme Court has previously held that states cannot do so.

    “Some scholars have predicted that Oklahoma will assert the authority to tax income earned by tribal citizens inside the reservation in pending tax cases even though the Supreme Court has previously held that states cannot do so (Leeds et al. 2023).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Leeds et al. 2023

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Several states have entered into accords with tribal governments or created state executive offices or commissions on Indian affairs.

    “Several states have entered into accords with tribal governments (Steinman 2004) or created state executive offices or commissions on Indian affairs (Johnson et al. 2000(Johnson et al. , 2009)).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Steinman 2004 source
    • cites Johnson et al. 2000

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Johnson et al. 2009

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    States may argue for authority over tribal citizens in other areas as well, such as taxation and civil jurisdiction.

    “States may argue for authority over tribal citizens in other areas as well, such as taxation and civil jurisdiction.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    Scholars have yet to explore fully how, when, and why states make Indian law and policy.

    “Scholars, however, have yet to explore fully how, when, and why states make Indian law and policy.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    States may seek jurisdiction over tribal citizens as well.

    “States may seek jurisdiction over tribal citizens as well.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    More recent studies have started to document the existence and content of tribal-local intergovernmental agreements.

    “More recent studies have started to document the existence and content of tribal-local intergovernmental agreements (Webster 2020).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Webster 2020

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    Tribal engagement in state governmental processes remains understudied.

    “Tribal engagement in state governmental processes also remains understudied.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    In an era of increased cooperation among many tribal and state governments, the decision privileges an antagonistic rather than a collaborative view of tribal-state relations.

    “In an era of increased cooperation among many tribal and state governments, the decision privileges an antagonistic rather than a collaborative view of tribal-state relations.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning

    States could once again become the deadliest enemies of the tribes.

    “States could once again become the deadliest enemies of the tribes.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Individuals do not know who to call when a crime occurs, which police should respond, or which government(s) are responsible for investigating, prosecuting, and providing victims services.

    “Individuals do not know who to call when a crime occurs, which police should respond, or which government(s) are responsible for investigating, prosecuting, and providing victims services (Amnesty International 2006).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Amnesty International 2006

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Recent studies have demonstrated that states are involved in making Indian law and policy.

    “Recent studies have demonstrated that states are involved in making Indian law and policy (Boehmke and Witmer 2015;Johnson and Witmer 2020;Witmer, Johnson, and Boehmke 2014).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Boehmke and Witmer 2015 source
    • cites Johnson and Witmer 2020 source
    • cites Witmer, Johnson, and Boehmke 2014 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationcitation

    The state of Oklahoma could seek to regulate hunting and fishing by tribal members on tribal lands by citing tribal members for not purchasing state licenses.

    “For example, the state of Oklahoma could seek to regulate hunting and fishing by tribal members on tribal lands by citing tribal members for not purchasing state licenses (Carlson 2022b).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Carlson 2022b

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Recent studies document how tribal governments use increasingly diverse and sophisticated strategies to influence state and local politics.

    “Recent studies document how tribal governments use increasingly diverse and sophisticated strategies to influence state and local politics (Boehmke and Witmer 2015;Evans 2011;Hansen and Skopek 2011;Holyoake 2009;Johnson and Witmer 2020).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Boehmke and Witmer 2015 source
    • cites Evans 2011 source
    • cites Hansen and Skopek 2011

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The state of Oklahoma refused to renew intergovernmental agreements after McGirt, but some local governments cooperated with the tribes to facilitate effective public safety post-McGirt.

    “For example, the state of Oklahoma refused to renew intergovernmental agreements after McGirt, but some local governments cooperated with the tribes to facilitate effective public safety post-McGirt (Carlson 2022a).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Carlson 2022a

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationnone given

    States may read the Court's decision in Castro-Huerta broadly to mean that they have authority over tribal citizens even though the opinion only grants them criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians.

    “States may read the Court's decision in Castro-Huerta broadly to mean that they have authority over tribal citizens even though the opinion only grants them criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    Some states have developed state legislative offices, but scholars have yet to explore their role in state legislative policymaking.

    “For example, some states have developed state legislative offices, but scholars have yet to explore their role in state legislative policymaking.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning

    The decision in Castro-Huerta may have ramifications for federal-state-tribal relations beyond the criminal context if states use its language to seek additional authority in Indian Country.

    “The decision in Castro-Huerta may have ramifications for federal-state-tribal relations beyond the criminal context if states use its language to seek additional authority in Indian Country.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    It departs from foundational principles of federal Indian law, prior court precedents, and congressional policy.

    “It departs from foundational principles of federal Indian law, prior court precedents, and congressional policy.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
97 of 97

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Congress has increasingly recognized inherent tribal authority in Indian Country by restoring tribal criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians for specified crimes.

    “The Supreme Court announced them at a time when Congress has increasingly recognized inherent tribal authority in Indian Country by restoring tribal criminal jurisdiction over non-Indians for specified crimes.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Congress has limited resources to expend on criminal cases in Indian Country.

    “Further Congress may cut funding to federal and tribal governments because it has limited resources to expend on criminal cases in Indian Country”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The likelihood that Congress will devote resources to exercising jurisdiction concurrently with a state is low.

    “and the likelihood that it will devote them to exercising jurisdiction concurrently with a state seems unlikely”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Cooperation among local, state, and tribal governments ensures accountability and that cases are adequately investigated and prosecuted.

    “Cooperation among local, state, and tribal governments also ensures accountability and that cases are adequately investigated and prosecuted.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The Tribal Law and Order Act mandates that federal law enforcement report decisions not to prosecute cases to tribal governments to ensure that cases do not fall through the cracks.

    “The Act mandates that federal law enforcement report decisions not to prosecute cases to tribal governments to ensure that cases do not fall through the cracks.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    In some places, local and tribal law enforcement officers have already developed partnerships and good working relationships through crossdeputization agreements.

    “In some places, local and tribal law enforcement officers have already developed partnerships and good working relationships through crossdeputization agreements.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Many states now have more positive examples and experiences with tribal governments than during earlier eras of heightened tribal-state conflict.

    “Unlike during earlier eras of heightened tribal-state conflict, many states now have more positive examples and experiences with tribal governments.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Some states have developed cooperative relationships and see the social and economic benefits of collaboration among state and tribal governments for effective governance.

    “Some states have developed cooperative relationships and see the social and economic benefits of collaboration among state and tribal governments for effective governance.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Governors have taken an active interest in tribal-state relations.

    “Governors have taken an active interest in tribal-state relations.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    In the past fifty years, tribal governments have emerged as formidable political players.

    “In the past fifty years, tribal governments have emerged as formidable political players.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Tribal governments have demonstrated their abilities to self-govern and provide effective governance for all the people in their territories under the Tribal Self-Determination Policy.

    “They have demonstrated their abilities to self-govern and provide effective governance for all the people in their territories under the Tribal Self-Determination Policy.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Congress has sought to expand tribal jurisdiction, finding that it serves everyone in a community.

    “Congress has sought to expand tribal jurisdiction, finding that it serves everyone in a community.”
12 of 12

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 10

  1. Carlson, 2022, Bringing Congress and Indians back into Federal Indian Law: The restatement of the law of American Indians, Washington Law Review, 97, 725
  2. Fletcher, 2012, Tribal consent, Stanford Journal of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, 8, 55
  3. Fletcher, 2016, Federal Indian Law
  4. Fletcher, 2021, Indian Tribes Are Governing Well. It’s the States that Are Failing, Washington Monthly, September, 30
  5. Getches, 1993, Negotiated sovereignty: Intergovernmental agreements with American Indian tribes as models for expanding self-government, Review of Constitutional Studies, 1, 120
  6. Goldberg, 2006, Is Public Law 280 fit for the twenty-first century? Some data at last, Connecticut Law Review, 38, 697
  7. Johnson, 2000, Government to government: Understanding state and tribal governments
  8. Johnson, 1995, Self-governance for Indian tribes: From paternalism to empowerment, Connecticut Law Review, 27, 1251
  9. Leeds, 2023, Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta—Rebalancing federal-state-tribal power, The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process, 23, 47
  10. Skibine, 2005, Dualism and the dialogic of incorporation in Federal Indian Law, Harvard Law Review Forum, 119, 28

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Carlson, K. M.
Affiliations
Wayne State University (US)
Corresponding author
Carlson, Kirsten Matoy
ORCID
Carlson, Kirsten Matoy
Venue
Publius: The Journal of Federalism
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2023-06-02
Volume
53
Issue
3
Pages
405-434
ISSN
  • 0048-5950 (ISSN-L)
  • 1747-7107
DOI
10.1093/publius/pjad020
OpenAlex
W4380090170
Cited by
1
References
41
Citations by year
2025: 1
FWCI
1.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
academic.oup.com/pages/standard-publication-reuse-rights (vor)
Locations
  • Publius The Journal of Federalism (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Law › Indigenous Peoples' Rights and Law
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › American Constitutional Law and Politics
  • Social Sciences › Law › Judicial and Constitutional Studies
Keywords
Indian Country, tribal sovereignty, federal criminal jurisdiction, tribal criminal jurisdiction, United States Supreme Court, tribal courts, tribal law enforcement

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-23.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-23.

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review