In Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerata, the Supreme Court considered whether a state can prosecute an individual for violating its criminal laws when that person was previously deported by federal authorities and then reentered the United States without permission. The Court held that states have authority to prosecute such individuals under their own criminal laws, even if they were previously removed from the country by federal officials. This decision reaffirms longstanding precedent which holds that states may exercise concurrent jurisdiction over immigration matters with respect to their own criminal codes. In addition, it clarifies how far a state’s power extends in this area of law and provides guidance on how courts should interpret similar cases going forward.

In the dissenting opinion of the Supreme Court case Oklahoma v. Castro-Trujillo, Justice Breyer argued that the majority opinion was wrong in its interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). He argued that the majority opinion failed to consider the language of the INA, which states that an alien who has been “admitted” to the United States is not subject to removal. Justice Breyer argued that the majority opinion failed to consider the fact that Castro-Trujillo had been admitted to the United States and was therefore not subject to removal. He argued that the majority opinion was wrong in its interpretation of the INA and that the court should have considered the language of the INA in its decision. Justice Breyer argued that the majority opinion was wrong in its interpretation of the INA and that the court should have considered the language of the INA in its decision. He argued that the majority opinion failed to consider the fact that Castro-Trujillo had been admitted to the United States and was therefore not subject to removal. He concluded that the majority opinion was wrong in its interpretation of the INA and that the court should have considered the language of the INA in its decision.