No. 25-7600October Term 2025Petition PendingUpdated Sep 3, 2026
Hazen Hunter Winckler v. South Dakota
Hazen Hunter Winckler, Petitioner v. South Dakota
Hazen Hunter Winckler, an enrolled tribal member, asks the Supreme Court to review South Dakota’s authority to prosecute him for offenses in Lake Andes.
Case status
- Current stage
- Petition Pending
- Latest event
- Petition pending
- Next
- Awaiting an order on the petitionNo decision timeline until the Court agrees to hear the case.
- What it's about
Hazen Hunter Winckler, an enrolled tribal member, asks the Supreme Court to review South Dakota’s authority to prosecute him for offenses in Lake Andes. He argues that Lake Andes remains Indian country because it lies on allotted Yankton Sioux lands within the 1858 reservation boundaries, while South Dakota courts held that the land lost that status after it passed into non-Indian ownership.
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 / Petition pending
- Area
Petition for review pending
Briefing
What it's about
Winckler asks the Supreme Court to decide whether Lake Andes is Indian country (land where federal or tribal authority may apply). He argues South Dakota lacked authority to prosecute him, an enrolled tribal member, for offenses there.
Argument
The case is pending, and oral argument has not been scheduled. Winckler argues that only Congress can remove Indian-country status through clear statutory language.
Impact
The case could determine which government may prosecute tribal members for conduct in Lake Andes. For example, it could affect whether a state or tribal and federal authorities handle a criminal case there.
What's next
The Court may schedule the case for argument or take another scheduling action. No decision window is available yet.
What is at stake in Winckler v. South Dakota?
The case concerns whether Lake Andes is Indian country and whether South Dakota could prosecute an enrolled tribal member for offenses there.
Who could be affected if Lake Andes is Indian country?
Tribal members accused of offenses in Lake Andes could be affected. The answer may determine whether state or tribal and federal authorities have criminal jurisdiction.
What happens next in Winckler v. South Dakota?
The Supreme Court will decide whether to review the petition. Watch for oral-argument scheduling or another Court action.
Documents
Activity
Docket activity2
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
Sep 3, 2026 | Generated
Brief added: Petition
Jun 9, 2026 | Court records
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
- Sep 3, 2026
- Method
- Methodology