Statements (62)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| gptkbp:instance_of |
gptkb:legal_case
|
| gptkbp:bfsLayer |
4
|
| gptkbp:bfsParent |
gptkb:Cherokee_Nation_v._United_States_Department_of_Education
gptkb:Cherokee_Nation_v._United_States_Department_of_Homeland_Security gptkb:Cherokee_Nation_v._United_States_Department_of_Labor gptkb:Native_American_Rights_Fund gptkb:Mc_Girt_v._Oklahoma |
| gptkbp:case_types |
Criminal law
21-429 Documented in legal archives Arguments presented by both sides Conclusion drawn by the Supreme Court Involved a serious crime |
| gptkbp:cultural_impact |
Potential increase in state prosecutions
Limited tribal sovereignty in criminal jurisdiction |
| gptkbp:decided_by |
gptkb:legal_case
|
| gptkbp:effective_date |
2022-07-01
|
| gptkbp:historical_context |
Tribal sovereignty issues in the U. S.
|
| gptkbp:historical_period |
Timeline of events leading to the case
|
| https://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label |
Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta
|
| gptkbp:is_involved_in |
gptkb:Oklahoma
gptkb:Victor_Castro-Huerta |
| gptkbp:judging_criteria |
Judgment delivered by the Supreme Court
|
| gptkbp:judicial_review |
Supreme Court review
|
| gptkbp:legal_issue |
Conservative interpretation
Influenced state-tribal relations Context of tribal law and state law State's right to prosecute Tribal sovereignty concerns State jurisdiction over crimes committed by non-Native Americans on Native American land |
| gptkbp:legal_representation |
gptkb:Oklahoma_Attorney_General
Victor Castro-Huerta's attorney |
| gptkbp:legislation |
gptkb:Major_Crimes_Act
gptkb:Indian_Civil_Rights_Act |
| gptkbp:material |
Involved a crime on a reservation
|
| gptkbp:media_coverage |
Extensive media coverage
|
| gptkbp:notable_event |
gptkb:Mc_Girt_v._Oklahoma
|
| gptkbp:outcome |
5-4 ruling
Reviewed by legal scholars Reaffirmed state authority Reaffirmed state power Significant for legal precedents Majority opinion emphasized state interests Impact on future legal cases Expanded state jurisdiction Analyzed for its legal implications Examined by legal experts The Court ruled that states have jurisdiction over crimes committed by non-Natives on tribal land Affected Native American communities Dissent focused on tribal rights Implications for law enforcement on reservations Relevant to ongoing jurisdiction debates Significant for state-tribal relations Significant legal ruling |
| gptkbp:precedent |
Set a precedent for future cases
State authority in criminal matters on tribal lands Influenced future cases regarding jurisdiction |
| gptkbp:public_perception |
gptkb:Justice_Kavanaugh
gptkb:Justice_Gorsuch Controversial decision |
| gptkbp:scholarly_analysis |
Analyzed in legal journals
|
| gptkbp:significance |
Clarified state and federal jurisdiction boundaries
|