Did the federal government's prosecution of an Indian for violation of state law in Indian country violate federal statutes and tribal sovereignty retained by Treaty because neither the Assimilative Crimes Act nor any other federal statute includes an explicit congressional statement defining the Warm Springs Reservation, or any other Indian country, as a federal enclave or otherwise subjecting Indian country to federal criminal jurisdiction for prosecution of a state offense not specifically covered by the federal criminal code?

QUESTION PRESENTED This Court’s controlling precedent requires a clear congressional statement to confer federal jurisdiction over crimes by Indians in Indian country. In the Major Crimes Act, Congress explicitly provided federal jurisdiction over specified offenses, none of which include fleeing from police officers, and described when state law applied. Johnny Smith, an enrolled member of the Confederated Tribes of Warms Springs, fled from tribal police , on two occasions while driving a car on the Warm Springs Reservation, an offense specifically punishable under the Warm Springs tribal code but not the federal criminal , code. The federal courts below permitted federal prosecution of Mr. Smith for a violation of the Oregon state offense of fleeing a police officer, under Or. Rev. Stat. § 811.540(1), through the Assimilative Crimes Act, which confers jurisdiction over crimes on federal enclaves. The question presented is: Did the federal government’s prosecution of an Indian for violation of state law in Indian country violate federal statutes and tribal sovereignty retained by Treaty because neither the Assimilative Crimes Act nor any other federal statute includes an explicit congressional statement defining the Warm Springs Reservation, or any other Indian country, as a federal enclave or otherwise subjecting Indian country to federal criminal jurisdiction for prosecution of a state offense not specifically covered by the federal criminal code?