POPULARITY
6 episodes with castro huerta
2 episodes with castro huerta
2 episodes with castro huerta
2 episodes with castro huerta
2 episodes with castro huerta
In celebration of Native American Heritage month, Keith Richotte Jr., author of the forthcoming book, The Worst Trickster Story Ever Told: Native America, the Supreme Court, and the U.S. Constitution and Matthew L.M. Fletcher of the University of Michigan discuss Native American history and law through the stories of landmark Supreme Court cases. Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderates. Resources: Matthew L.M. Fletcher, The Ghost Road: Anishinaabe Responses to Indian Hating (2020) Keith Richotte Jr., The Worst Trickster Story Ever Told: Native America, the Supreme Court, and the U.S. Constitution (forthcoming 2025) United States v. Kagama (1886) United States v. Lara (2004) Matthew L.M. Fletcher, “Muskrat Textualism,” Northwestern Law Review, Jan. 16, 2022. McGirt v. Oklahoma (2020) Ex Parte Crow Dog (1883) Major Crimes Act Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe (1978) Montana v. United States (1981) Indian Civil Rights Act Duro v. Reina (1990) Haaland v. Brackeen (2023) Turtle Talk Blog Worcester v. Georgia (1832) Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta (2022) Stay Connected and Learn More Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcasts@constitutioncenter.org Continue the conversation by following us on social media @ConstitutionCtr. Sign up to receive Constitution Weekly, our email roundup of constitutional news and debate. Subscribe, rate, and review wherever you listen. Join us for an upcoming live program or watch recordings on YouTube. Support our important work. Donate
On June 29, 2022, in Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta, the U.S. Supreme Court held in a 5-4 decision that the state of Oklahoma had concurrent jurisdiction with the federal government to prosecute crimes committed by non-Indians against Indians in Indian Country. Indian Law & Gaming Practice Group Chair Mike McBride and associate Greg Buzzard discuss the importance of the change in composition to the Supreme Court between McGirt and Castro-Huerta, including the court's decision to apply the Bracker balancing test for the first time in a criminal law case. They also examine the potential impact of the decision on states with considerably different Tribal jurisdictions and demographics to those in Oklahoma.About Mike McBride and Greg BuzzardConnect with Crowe & Dunlevy:Website | Facebook | Twitter | LinkedIn
The 2022 Supreme Court ruling on Oklahoma vs. Castro-Huerta granted the state of Oklahoma the power to prosecute non-Indians who commit felony crimes against tribal citizens on reservation land. It comes just two years after a landmark decision in McGirt vs. Oklahoma, which resulted in 40% of eastern Oklahoma being affirmed as reservation land, thereby expanding tribal jurisdiction over criminal cases there. Tribes and tribal law experts see the Castro-Huerta ruling as an alarming turn in the Court's treatment of Indian law and tribal affairs. We speak with Allison Herrera, reporter on Indigenous Affairs at KOSU in Oklahoma and correspondent for Newsy, and Dr. Matthew Fletcher, Harry Burns Hutchins Collegiate Professor of Law at University of Michigan Law and a tribal judge.
This week's guest is Craig Cowie, Professor at the University of Montana's Blewitt School of Law. Craig helps guide us through three of the most significant decisions in this recently concluded term of the US Supreme Court. The first case is Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization that overturned Roe v Wade in June. Craig explains the five possible ways this could change abortion access in Montana. The next case is Oklahoma v Castro-Huerta, and Craig dives into the flip in reasoning stemming from a 200-year history of Indian Law. Lastly, we hear about West Virginia v EPA and Craig's thoughts on the place of historical analysis in Supreme Court decisions. Transcript here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/15qHMdPv3AzhGY3KPTtlmIkXVd8Sis0By20d8F6Iivkw/edit
Continuing its trajectory of abandoning tests that don't pass the vibe check, the Supreme Court ruled that states can prosecute crimes committed by non-Natives on Native land. The holding overturns literally centuries of precedent and clears the way to eliminate tribal sovereignty all together.Follow Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon) and Michael (@_FleerUltra) on Twitter.If you're not a Patreon member, you're not hearing every episode! To get exclusive Patreon-only episodes, discounts on merch, access to our Slack community, and more, join at patreon.com/fivefourpod. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
On June 29, 2022, the Supreme Court decided Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta. In a 5-4 decision, the Court reversed and remanded the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. The Court held that the federal government and the state have concurrent jurisdiction to prosecute crimes committed by non-Indians against Indians in Indian country. Justice Kavanaugh delivered the opinion of the Court. Justice Gorsuch filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined.Please join our legal expert to discuss the case, the legal issues involved, and the implications going forward.Featuring:-- David Casazza, Associate Attorney, Gibson Dunn-- Anthony J. Ferate, Of Counsel, Spencer Fane LLP-- Jason Manion, Associate Attorney, Gibson Dunn-- Jennifer Weddle, Shareholder, Greenberg Traurig
This week, we continue our review of consequential decisions to come from the Supreme Court this term and turn our attention to Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta, which will have major implications for tribal sovereignty and jurisdiction going forward. To discuss the decision, Lindsay Langholz is joined by Professor Maggie Blackhawk who explains how, as she described it, the Court acted “against hundreds of years of congressional action, against solid SCOTUS precedent, and hundreds of years of history” in handing down a “a devastating result for our democracy.” They also discuss a case the Court has agreed to take up next term regarding the Indian Child Welfare Act. Join the Progressive Legal Movement Today: ACSLaw.org Today's Host: Lindsay Langholz, ACS Director of Policy and Program Guest: Maggie Blackhawk, Professor of Law, NYU School of Law Link: Supreme Court decision in McGirt v. Oklahoma Link: Supreme Court decision in Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta Link: SCOTUS Blog on Brackeen v. Haaland Visit the Podcast Website: Broken Law Podcast Email the Show: Podcast@ACSLaw.org Follow ACS on Social Media: Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | LinkedIn | YouTube ----------------- Production House: Flint Stone Media Copyright of American Constitution Society 2022.
This week's episode covers three cases which discuss recent Supreme Court decisions on Native American Law and Tribal Sovereignty, including Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta (holding that State law has criminal jurisdiction on tribal land), Denezpi v. U.S (holding that the Double Jeopardy clause does not bar successive prosecutions involving CFR courts) and Yselta Del Sur Pueblo v. Texas (holding that Texas does not have jurisdiction to regulate gaming activities on reservations). Law starts at (1:30).
The US Supreme Court just challenged tribal sovereignty in its ruling in Oklahoma v Castro-Huerta, which empowers the state much greater power to prosecute for alleged crimes in tribal lands. The legal implications are vast. We will explore the case and the future of tribal sovereignty in light of the Court's drastic reversal of case … Continue reading Scholars' Circle – SCOTUS on the path to take back tribal sovereignty set in law by the US Congress – July 24, 2022 →
The 2022 Supreme Court ruling on Oklahoma vs. Castro-Huerta granted the state of Oklahoma the power to prosecute non-Indians who commit felony crimes against tribal citizens on reservation land. It comes just two years after a landmark decision in McGirt vs. Oklahoma, which resulted in 40% of eastern Oklahoma being affirmed as reservation land, thereby expanding tribal jurisdiction over criminal cases there. Tribes and tribal law experts see the Castro-Huerta ruling as an alarming turn in the Court's treatment of Indian law and tribal affairs. We speak with Allison Herrera, reporter on Indigenous Affairs at KOSU in Oklahoma and correspondent for Newsy, and Dr. Matthew Fletcher, Harry Burns Hutchins Collegiate Professor of Law at University of Michigan Law and a tribal judge.
We're back to wrap up the end of the U.S. Supreme Court's frantic 2021-2022 term. With no shortage of impactful decisions to choose from, this time we cover West Virginia v. EPA (taking power away from federal agencies), Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta (how state governments handle criminal matters with tribal authorities), and two First Amendment cases that emphasize the free exercise of religion (Carson v. Maikin and Kennedy v. Bremerton School District). Read more on FindLaw: A Touchdown for Religious Expression SCOTUS Again Extends Religious Expression Supreme Court Gives States Expanded Power Over Native Tribes SCOTUS Limits EPA Emission Control Powers
In late June, the Supreme Court handed down a decision that expands the states' authority over Native land. The conservative court ruled 5-4 in favor of Oklahoma in the case, allowing states to charge non-Indians who commit crimes against Indians on tribal land.According to Justice Neil Gorsuch, who wrote the dissent, the ruling in Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta is "an embarrassing new entry into the anti-canon of Indian law ... Truly, a more ahistorical and mistaken statement of Indian law would be hard to fathom."We discuss how the ruling changes how crimes will be prosecuted and by whom. We also talk about the larger implications for the meaning of Indigenous sovereignty.Want to support 1A? Give to your local public radio station and subscribe to this podcast. Have questions? Find us on Twitter @1A.
A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision is making waves in law enforcement circles. The case—Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta—concerns who prosecutes crimes committed on tribal land when non-Native American suspects are involved. Today on the pod, we'll talk about what this case means for tribal sovereignty here in Michigan. As you'll hear, things just got a lot more complicated. GUESTS: Jocelyn Fabry, chief judge for the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians Kirsten Matoy Carlson, professor of law and adjunct professor of political science at Wayne State University. Looking for more conversations from Stateside? Right this way. If you like what you hear on the pod, consider supporting our work. Stateside's theme music is by 14KT. Additional music by Blue Dot Sessions. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Welcome to Fireside Breakdowns season 3! We're wasting no time this season - we're jumping straight into the deep end with a series about how the Supreme Court decisions that were handed down this Summer could potentially affect life for ALL Americans. We feel like we saw the beginnings of a well-lined path being laid out for the U.S. - some might even say a train track - and we're concerned about where it will lead us if we don't pay attention. That's why we're going to start by taking a closer look at some of the decisions released by the Supreme Court in May and June 2022. Many of these cases were widely publicized. Some were published without much fanfare. But each of them could have significant impacts on the way we live our lives from this point on. Bonus discussion of Shinn v Ramirez + Episode 2 of the series - 1 Step Forward, 2 Steps Back - are available NOW on Patreon. Cases discussed: Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization, West Virginia v EPA, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc v. Bruen, Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta, and Vega v. Tekoh. What's in this episode? Discussion of each of the above cases, and their potential impact on the future We get very salty about Brett Kavanaugh Good News: DHHS guidelines on emergency abortions If you'd like to get in touch… You can leave us a review at: https://ratethispodcast.com/fireside Or you can drop us a note from our Contact page! You can find all of our sources in our Show Notes. And, check out our Patreon Page! Patrons get access to early episode drops, bonus content, priority topic requests, quarterly happy hours, and more!
In one of its last decisions of the 2021-22 term, the U.S. Supreme Court threw out almost two hundred years of American jurisprudence to side with the state of Oklahoma, according to a professor of Indian Law at the University of Oklahoma.
In one of its last decisions of the 2021-22 term, the U.S. Supreme Court threw out almost two hundred years of American jurisprudence to side with the state of Oklahoma, according to a professor of Indian Law at the University of Oklahoma.
Indian tribe sovereignty has long been a much neglected, yet important, tool in decentralizing and limiting government power in the US. Original Article: "SCOTUS Attacked Indian Tribe Sovereignty in Castro-Huerta, and That's a Bad Thing." This Audio Mises Wire is generously sponsored by Christopher Condon.
So we all know what the heck we're talking about, this week we're talking about all of the Supreme Court's 2022 decisions. And we're delving further into the reasoning and ramifications of the overturn of Roe v. Wade. Theme music is “Get Happy Now” by Podington Bear Links & Research: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/interactive/2022/significant-supreme-court-decisions-2022/ https://www.findlaw.com/litigation/legal-system/how-to-read-a-supreme-court-opinion.html https://www.vox.com/2022/6/24/23181723/roe-v-wade-dobbs-clarence-thomas-concurrence https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/more-than-abortion-rides-on-scotus-in-dobbs https://www.npr.org/2022/07/08/1110455155/abortion-rights-biden-executive-order https://www.espn.com/espn/story/_/id/33783970/how-unknown-high-school-football-coach-landed-center-supreme-court-religious-liberty-case https://www.businessinsider.com/obergefell-telling-clarence-thomas-didnt-bring-up-loving-v-virginia-2022-6 https://lawandcrime.com/legal-analysis/heres-why-justice-thomas-didnt-mention-interracial-marriage-when-he-asked-the-court-to-rethink-several-cases-after-overturning-roe-v-wade/ https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/amendment-xiv/clauses/701 https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_v._Zubaydah https://ballotpedia.org/Oklahoma_v._Castro-Huerta
Indian tribe sovereignty has long been a much neglected, yet important, tool in decentralizing and limiting government power in the US. Original Article: "SCOTUS Attacked Indian Tribe Sovereignty in Castro-Huerta, and That's a Bad Thing." This Audio Mises Wire is generously sponsored by Christopher Condon.
Here's what's on your local evening news for Thursday, July 14, 2022: Community Pharmacy is distributing free fentanyl testing kits to fight drug overdoses in Dane County,Public Health Madison Dane County is expanding reproductive health resources, and will begin offering IUDs, The underreported Supreme Court decision in Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta could undermine tribal sovereignty for the Menominee Nation, Isthmus editor-in-chief Judy Davidoff tells us about her embedded reporting following one woman's trip to Illinois for abortion care, Families of victims of gun violence share their story, Outtadeebox speaks with entrepreneur J-Ball about his journey from foster care, to prison, and finally to businessman, And Radio Chipstone takes stock of an inherited sewing machine and accompanying gadgets.
Tribal leaders and legal scholars are preparing for what they say are the significant and long lasting effects of the Supreme Court's decision in Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta. The High Court ruled that states have jurisdiction on tribal land for crimes committed by non-Native people. The implications have yet to play out, but experts are raising the alarm about a major departure in the legal and practical understanding of sovereignty. Today on Native America Calling, Shawn Spruce gets additional perspectives on the ruling and discusses the strategies tribes are considering in the coming days and years with Rebecca Nagle (Cherokee), writer, advocate, and host of This Land podcast; Robert Miller (Eastern Shawnee), law professor at Arizona State University and tribal judge; and Elizabeth Hidalgo Reese (Nambe Pueblo), assistant professor at Stanford Law School.
Tribal leaders and legal scholars are preparing for what they say are the significant and long lasting effects of the Supreme Court's decision in Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta. The High Court ruled that states have jurisdiction on tribal land for crimes committed by non-Native people. The implications have yet to play out, but experts are raising the alarm about a major departure in the legal and practical understanding of sovereignty. Today on Native America Calling, Shawn Spruce gets additional perspectives on the ruling and discusses the strategies tribes are considering in the coming days and years with Rebecca Nagle (Cherokee), writer, advocate, and host of This Land podcast; Robert Miller (Eastern Shawnee), law professor at Arizona State University and tribal judge; and Elizabeth Hidalgo Reese (Nambe Pueblo), assistant professor at Stanford Law School.
The Supreme Court's recent decision in West Virginia v. EPA not only throws a substantial hurdle ahead of regulating greenhouse gas emissions from coal power plants, it takes a vicious swipe at the entirety of the modern administrative state. Using a new invention—the “major questions doctrine”—the Supreme Court has set up an easy way for conservative judges across the country to invalidate any regulation that a judge finds to be of “vast significance.” The Supreme Court has been on a bender of recent: reproductive rights (Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization), school prayer (Kennedy v. Bremerton School District), tribal sovereignty (Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta), separation of church and state (Carson v. Makin), gun regulation (New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen). All of these controversial decisions were decided by a majority of Republican-appointed judges. This is not a coincidence but the product of a 40+ year movement by conservative activists. How can environmentalists and progressives restrain the Supreme Court before we lose any more rights and still have a democracy? Listen in to hear more.Support the show
This week Soundman Jim, Linda Gillison and Mark discuss the effectiveness of economic sanctions, those applied to Russia, and their economic blowback. Our feature interview is with Prof. Monte Mills of the University of Montana Indian Law Clinic about the recent terrible decision by the SCOTUS on Native sovereignty, Oklahoma v Castro-Huerta. We also put on our rubber boots and look at an essential industry - fertilizers, and why their cost is skyrocketing which will be reflected in food prices.
The Supreme Court finally finished the OT2021 term-- and it was a doozy. Kate and Leah recap the last few opinions, including Oklahoma v. Castro Huerta, with special guest Greg Ablavsky of Stanford Law [3:55], and the "praying coach" case, Kennedy v. Bremerton School District [34:22]. Then, a lighting round of four more opinions and other Court-related news [53:06]. You're angry. We're angry. Let's do something about it. From directly supporting patients who need abortions right now, to electing pro-choice candidates in 2022 and building a progressive majority over the long term, you can find everything you need to fight back in our Fuck Bans Action Plan hub at votesaveamerica.com/roe.
The Supreme Court recently ruled against Tribal sovereignty in Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta. Cherokee journalist Rebecca Nagle (@rebeccanagle) talks about the broader implications of this decision and what it means for future legal battles. Support www.patreon.com/redmediapr
Can be prosecuted by states.Support the show
The United States Supreme Court on Wednesday reversed a lower court ruling from 2021, instead deciding that Oklahoma can prosecute non-Native Oklahomans who commit crimes against tribal members on tribal land. The court's decision overturns a previous ruling by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals that vacated the Tulsa County conviction of Victor Manuel Castro-Huerta. Castro-Huerta, a non-Native American, was convicted in 2017 of child neglect after his 5-year-old stepdaughter, who is Native American, was found in terrible conditions. On this episode of Listen Frontier, I speak about the decision with KOSU Indigenous Affairs reporter Allison Herrera, as well as Ryan Leonard, who serves as Special Counsel for Native American Affairs to Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt.
Victor Manuel Castro-Huerta, a non-Native, was convicted in Oklahoma state court of child neglect, and he was sentenced to 35 years. The victim, his stepdaughter, is Native American, and the crime was committed within the Cherokee Reservation. Castro-Huerta challenged his conviction, arguing that under the Supreme Court's 2020 decision in McGirt v. Oklahoma, which held that states cannot prosecute crimes committed on Native American lands without federal approval. Oklahoma argued that McGirt involved a Native defendant, whereas Castro-Huerta is non-Native, so McGirt does not bar his prosecution by the state. The case was decided on June 29, 2022. The Court held that The Federal Government and the State have concurrent jurisdiction to prosecute crimes committed by non-Indians against Indians in Indian country. Justice KAVANAUGH, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice ROBERTS and Justices THOMAS, ALITO, and BARRETT joined. Justice GORSUCH filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN joined. Credit: Oyez, LII Supreme Court Resources, Justia Supreme Court Center, available at: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2021/21-429 --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/scotus-opinions/support
Leah, Kate, and Melissa bring you a jam-packed show recapping news, arguments, and opinions from the Supreme Court in the past couple weeks. Recaps include "the praying coach case," aka Kennedy v. Bremerton School District [10:26], Shoop v. Twyford [45:27], and Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta [50:05]. We also do some math trying to figure out who might-- or might not-- have the still-to-come opinion in Dobbs [57:21], and get out the kleenex for the Chief Justice's teary tribute to Justice Breyer [1:06:44]. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
QUESTION PRESENTEDWhether a state has authority to prosecute non-Indians who commit crimes against Indians in Indian country.Date Proceedings and OrdersSep 17 2021 | Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due October 21, 2021)Sep 22 2021 | Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, State of OklahomaOct 20 2021 | Motion to extend the time to file a response from October 21, 2021 to November 22, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.Oct 21 2021 | Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including November 22, 2021.Oct 21 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Environmental Federation of Oklahoma, Inc., et al filed.Oct 21 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Cities of Tulsa and Owasso, Oklahoma filed.Oct 21 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Texas, et al.Oct 21 2021 | Brief amici curiae of the Oklahoma District Attorneys Association, et al. filed.Oct 29 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Cherokee Nation filed.Nov 15 2021 | Brief of respondent Victor Manuel Castro-Huerta in opposition filed.Nov 16 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Muscogee (Creek) Nation filed.Nov 18 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Chickasaw Nation and Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma filed.Nov 19 2021 | Application (21A168) to file reply brief in excess of word limits, submitted to Justice Gorsuch.Nov 22 2021 | Response of Victor Manuel Castro-Huerta to application filed.Nov 29 2021 | Application (21A168) denied by Justice Gorsuch.Dec 08 2021 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/7/2022.Dec 08 2021 | Reply of petitioner Oklahoma filed. (Distributed)Jan 10 2022 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/14/2022.Jan 18 2022 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/21/2022.Jan 21 2022 | Petition GRANTED limited to Question 1 presented by the petition. The case will be set for argument in the April 2022 argument session. Petitioner's brief on the merits is to be filed on or before Monday, February 28, 2022. Respondent's brief on the merits is to be filed on or before Monday, March 28, 2022. The reply brief is to be filed in accordance with Rule 25.3.Feb 09 2022 | Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner Oklahoma.Feb 09 2022 | Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, OklahomaFeb 10 2022 | Blanket Consent filed by Respondent, Victor Manuel Castro-HuertaFeb 22 2022 | Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner GRANTED.Feb 28 2022 | Brief of petitioner Oklahoma filed.Mar 07 2022 | Brief amici curiae of The Oklahoma District Attorneys Association, et al. filed.Mar 07 2022 | Brief amici curiae of Texas, et al. filed.Mar 07 2022 | Brief amici curiae of Environmental Federation of Oklahoma, Inc., et al. filed.Mar 07 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of Oklahoma Association of Chiefs of Police filed.Mar 07 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of Citizens for Equal Rights Foundation filed.Mar 07 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of City of Tulsa, Oklahoma filed.Mar 07 2022 | Motion for leave to file appendix to amicus curiae brief under seal filed by City of Tulsa, Oklahoma.Mar 15 2022 | ARGUMENT SET FOR Wednesday, April 27, 2022.Mar 16 2022 | Record requested from the Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma, and also from the Tulsa County District Court.Mar 22 2022 | Record received from the Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. (1 Box)Mar 23 2022 | CIRCULATEDMar 28 2022 | Record received from the U.S. District Court for Tulsa County. (1 Box)Mar 28 2022 | Brief of respondent Victor Manuel Castro-Huerta filed. (Distributed)Apr 01 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of National Congress of American Indians filed. (Distributed)Apr 04 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of United States filed. (Distributed)Apr 04 2022 | Brief amici curiae of Cherokee Nation, Chickasaw Nation, Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, Muscogee (Creek) Nation, and Seminole Nation of Oklahoma filed. (Distributed)Apr 04 2022 | Brief amici curiae of Federal Indian Law Scholars and Historians filed. (Distributed)Apr 04 2022 | Brief amici curiae of Former United States Attorneys Michael Cotter, et al. filed. (Distributed)Apr 04 2022 | Brief amici curiae of National Indigenous Women's Resource Center, et al. filed. (Distributed)Apr 04 2022 | Brief amici curiae of The Navajo Nation, et al. filed. (Distributed)Apr 04 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers filed. (Distributed)Apr 04 2022 | Brief amicus curiae of United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma filed. (Distributed)Apr 04 2022 | Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae, for divided argument, and for enlargement of time for oral argument filed.Apr 14 2022 | Motion of City of Tulsa, Oklahoma for leave to file an appendix to an amicus curiae brief under seal GRANTED.Apr 14 2022 | Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae, for divided argument, and for enlargement of time for oral argument GRANTED.Apr 15 2022 | Reply of petitioner Oklahoma filed. (Distributed)★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★
A case in which the Court will decide whether a state has the authority to prosecute non-Natives who commit crimes against Natives on Native American lands.
A case in which the Court will decide whether a state has the authority to prosecute non-Natives who commit crimes against Natives on Native American lands.
Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta | 04/27/22 | Docket #: 21-429
Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta
Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta
The U.S. Supreme Court hears oral arguments in Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta, No. 21-429, on April 27, 2022. At issue is whether the state of Oklahoma can prosecute non-Indians who commit crimes against Indians in Indian Country. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals ruled that jurisdiction lies with the federal government. The hearing lasted about 2 hours and 12 minutes, far longer than the 70 minutes allotted by the Supreme Court. The hearing concluded with a tribute to Justice Stephen G. Breyer, who is stepping down at the end of the court's current session. TRACKLIST: Kannon K. Shanmugam for State of Oklahoma Zachary Charles Schauf for Victor Manuel Castro-Huerta Edwin S. Kneedler for the United States Rebuttal from Kannon K. Shanmugam for State of Oklahoma Recognition of Edwin S. Kneedler and Tribute to Justice Stephen G. Breyer
The U.S. Supreme Court hears oral arguments in Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta, No. 21-429, on April 27, 2022. At issue is whether the state of Oklahoma can prosecute non-Indians who commit crimes against Indians in Indian Country. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals ruled that jurisdiction lies with the federal government. The hearing lasted about 2 hours and 12 minutes, far longer than the 70 minutes allotted by the Supreme Court. The hearing concluded with a tribute to Justice Stephen G. Breyer, who is stepping down at the end of the court's current session. TRACKLIST: Kannon K. Shanmugam for State of Oklahoma Zachary Charles Schauf for Victor Manuel Castro-Huerta Edwin S. Kneedler for the United States Rebuttal from Kannon K. Shanmugam for State of Oklahoma Recognition of Edwin S. Kneedler and Tribute to Justice Stephen G. Breyer
The U.S. Supreme Court hears oral arguments in Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta, No. 21-429, on April 27, 2022. At issue is whether the state of Oklahoma can prosecute non-Indians who commit crimes against Indians in Indian Country. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals ruled that jurisdiction lies with the federal government. The hearing lasted about 2 hours and 12 minutes, far longer than the 70 minutes allotted by the Supreme Court. The hearing concluded with a tribute to Justice Stephen G. Breyer, who is stepping down at the end of the court's current session. TRACKLIST: Kannon K. Shanmugam for State of Oklahoma Zachary Charles Schauf for Victor Manuel Castro-Huerta Edwin S. Kneedler for the United States Rebuttal from Kannon K. Shanmugam for State of Oklahoma Recognition of Edwin S. Kneedler and Tribute to Justice Stephen G. Breyer
The U.S. Supreme Court hears oral arguments in Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta, No. 21-429, on April 27, 2022. At issue is whether the state of Oklahoma can prosecute non-Indians who commit crimes against Indians in Indian Country. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals ruled that jurisdiction lies with the federal government. The hearing lasted about 2 hours and 12 minutes, far longer than the 70 minutes allotted by the Supreme Court. The hearing concluded with a tribute to Justice Stephen G. Breyer, who is stepping down at the end of the court's current session. TRACKLIST: Kannon K. Shanmugam for State of Oklahoma Zachary Charles Schauf for Victor Manuel Castro-Huerta Edwin S. Kneedler for the United States Rebuttal from Kannon K. Shanmugam for State of Oklahoma Recognition of Edwin S. Kneedler and Tribute to Justice Stephen G. Breyer
The U.S. Supreme Court hears oral arguments in Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta, No. 21-429, on April 27, 2022. At issue is whether the state of Oklahoma can prosecute non-Indians who commit crimes against Indians in Indian Country. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals ruled that jurisdiction lies with the federal government. The hearing lasted about 2 hours and 12 minutes, far longer than the 70 minutes allotted by the Supreme Court. The hearing concluded with a tribute to Justice Stephen G. Breyer, who is stepping down at the end of the court's current session. TRACKLIST: Kannon K. Shanmugam for State of Oklahoma Zachary Charles Schauf for Victor Manuel Castro-Huerta Edwin S. Kneedler for the United States Rebuttal from Kannon K. Shanmugam for State of Oklahoma Recognition of Edwin S. Kneedler and Tribute to Justice Stephen G. Breyer
The U.S. Supreme Court hears oral arguments in Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta, No. 21-429, on April 27, 2022. At issue is whether the state of Oklahoma can prosecute non-Indians who commit crimes against Indians in Indian Country. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals ruled that jurisdiction lies with the federal government. The hearing lasted about 2 hours and 12 minutes, far longer than the 70 minutes allotted by the Supreme Court. The hearing concluded with a tribute to Justice Stephen G. Breyer, who is stepping down at the end of the court's current session. TRACKLIST: Kannon K. Shanmugam for State of Oklahoma Zachary Charles Schauf for Victor Manuel Castro-Huerta Edwin S. Kneedler for the United States Rebuttal from Kannon K. Shanmugam for State of Oklahoma Recognition of Edwin S. Kneedler and Tribute to Justice Stephen G. Breyer
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
