No. 25-7600October Term 2025Before Arguments
Hazen Hunter Winckler, Petitioner v. South Dakota
from the Supreme Court of South Dakota.
Case status
- Current stage
- Before Arguments
- Latest event
- Accepted by the Court
- Decision timing
- No window until argument is scheduled.
- What it's about
from the Supreme Court of South Dakota.
Question presented
Whether Lake Andes, South Dakota – located on Yankton Sioux allotted lands within the boundaries of the reservation created by the Treaty with the Yankton Sioux, April 19, 1858, 11 Stat. 743 – constitutes Indian country under 18 U.S.C. § 1151, such that the State of South Dakota lacked jurisdiction to prosecute Petitioner, an enrolled tribal member, for offenses occurring there, where the South Dakota Supreme Court’s holding that allotted lands lose Indian country status upon conveyance to non- Indian ownership conflicts with this Court’s precedents including McGirt v. Oklahoma, 591 U.S. 894 (2020), and Solem v. Bartlett, 465 U.S. 463 (1984), which established only Congress can divest Indian country status through clear and explicit statutory language.
- Case path
Supreme Court of South Dakota / Accepted by the Court
- Area
Supreme Court case awaiting argument
Timing
Expected by late June 2026, if argued this term
The Court granted review but has not yet scheduled oral argument. Once argued, the median case reaches a decision in 94 days. Nearly all cases are decided by the end of the term in which they are argued.
Briefing
What it's about
The Supreme Court is being asked to decide whether Lake Andes, South Dakota, counts as Indian country under federal law. That matters because Hazen Hunter Winckler, an enrolled tribal member, says the state lacked authority to prosecute him for offenses there.
Argument
No oral argument is scheduled yet. The petition argues that Lake Andes remained Indian country within the reservation's boundaries and that only Congress can clearly take that status away.
Impact
The answer could affect which government may bring criminal cases in places tied to Yankton Sioux allotted lands. For example, it could change who handles prosecutions involving tribal members in Lake Andes and similar areas.
What is the main issue in Hazen Hunter Winckler v. South Dakota?
The justices are being asked whether Lake Andes counts as Indian country under 18 U.S.C. § 1151. If it does, Winckler says South Dakota lacked jurisdiction to prosecute him there.
Who could be affected if the Court takes Winckler's case?
Tribal members, local prosecutors, and courts in and around Lake Andes could be affected. The answer may shape who can bring criminal cases on these allotted lands.
What happens next in Winckler v. South Dakota?
The Court must decide whether to grant certiorari (agree to hear the case). No oral argument is scheduled yet, so watch for a scheduling order or another docket update.
Related cases
Grounding
- Grounding
- Primary materials plus reporting.
- Note
- Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.
- Checked
- Jul 23, 2026
- Method
- Methodology