|
------------------------------------------------------------
AN E-BULLETIN
LEGAL INFORMATION INSTITUTE -- CORNELL LAW SCHOOL
lii\@lii.law.cornell.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------
The following decisions have just arrived via the
LII's direct Project HERMES feed from the Supreme Court.
====================================================
CITY OF SHERRILL, NEW YORK v. ONEIDA INDIAN NATION OF
NEW YORK et al. (No. 03855.)
Argued January 11, 2005Decided March 29, 2005
Opinion author: Ginsburg
Available at:
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-855.ZS.html
====================================================
Respondent Oneida Indian Nation of New York (OIN or
Tribe) is a direct descendant of the Oneida Indian
Nation (Oneida Nation), whose aboriginal homeland, at
the Nations birth, comprised some six million acres
in what is now central New York State (State). See,
e.g., Oneida Indian Nation of N. Y. v. County of
Oneida, 414 U.S. 661, 664 (Oneida I). In 1788, the
State and the Oneida Nation entered into a treaty
whereby the Oneidas ceded all their lands to the
State, but retained a reservation of about 300,000
acres for their own use. See County of Oneida v.
Oneida Indian Nation of N. Y., 470 U.S. 226, 231
(Oneida II). The Federal Government initially pursued
a policy protective of the New York Indians. In 1790,
Congress passed the first Indian Trade and Intercourse
Act (Nonintercourse Act), barring sales of tribal land
without the Governments acquiescence. And in the 1794
Treaty of Canandaigua, the United States
"acknowledge[d]" the Oneidas 300,000-acre reservation
and guaranteed their "free use and enjoyment" of the
reserved territory. Act of Nov. 11, 1794, 7 Stat. 44,
45, Art. III. Nevertheless, New York continued to
purchase reservation land from the Oneidas. Although
the Washington administration objected, later
administrations made not even a pretense of
interfering with New Yorks purchases, and ultimately
pursued a policy designed to open reservation lands to
white settlers and to remove tribes westward.
Pressured by the removal policy, many Oneidas left the
State. Those who stayed continued to diminish in
number and, during the 1840s, sold most of their
remaining lands to New York. By 1920, the New York
Oneidas retained only 32 acres in the State.
Although early litigation over Oneida land
claims trained on monetary recompense from the United
States for past deprivations, the Oneidas ultimately
shifted to suits against local governments. In 1970,
they filed a federal "test case" against two New York
counties, alleging that the cession of 100,000 acres
to the State in 1795 violated the Nonintercourse Act
and thus did not terminate the Oneidas right to
possession. They sought damages measured by the fair
rental value, for the years 1968 and 1969, of 872
acres of their ancestral land owned and occupied by
the two counties. The District Court, affirmed by the
Court of Appeals, dismissed the complaint for failure
to state a federal claim. This Court reversed in
Oneida I, 414 U.S., at 675, 682, holding that federal
jurisdiction was properly invoked. After the Oneidas
prevailed in the lower courts, this Court held, inter
alia, that the Oneidas could maintain their claim to
be compensated "for violation of their possessory
rights based on federal common law," Oneida II, 470
U.S., at 236, but reserved "[t]he question whether
equitable considerations should limit the relief
available to present day Oneida Indians," id., at 253,
n. 27.
In 1997 and 1998, OIN purchased separate
parcels of land in petitioner city of Sherrill, New
York. These properties, once contained within the
historic Oneida Reservation, were last possessed by
the Oneidas as a tribal entity in 1805. In that year,
the Oneida Nation transferred the parcels to one of
its members, who sold the land to a non-Indian in
1807. The properties thereafter remained in non-Indian
hands until OIN reacquired them in open-market
transactions. For two centuries, governance of the
area in which the properties are located has been
provided by the State and its county and municipal
units. According to the 2000 census, over 99% of the
areas present-day population is non-Indian.
Nevertheless, because the parcels lie within the
boundaries of the reservation originally occupied by
the Oneidas, OIN maintained that the properties are
tax exempt and accordingly refused to pay property
taxes assessed by Sherrill. Sherrill initiated state-
court eviction proceedings, and OIN brought this
federal-court suit. In contrast to Oneida I and II,
which involved demands for monetary compensation, OIN
sought equitable relief prohibiting, currently and in
the future, the imposition of property taxes. The
District Court concluded that the parcels are not
taxable, and the Second Circuit affirmed. In this
Court, OIN resists the payment of the property taxes
on the ground that OINs acquisition of fee title to
discrete parcels of historic reservation land revived
the Oneidas ancient sovereignty piecemeal over each
parcel, so that regulatory authority over the newly
purchased properties no longer resides in Sherrill.
Held: Given the longstanding, distinctly non-Indian
character of central New York and its inhabitants, the
regulatory authority over the area constantly
exercised by the State and its counties and towns for
200 years, and the Oneidas long delay in seeking
judicial relief against parties other than the United
States, standards of federal Indian law and federal
equity practice preclude the Tribe from unilaterally
reviving its ancient sovereignty, in whole or in part,
over the parcels at issue. The Oneidas long ago
relinquished governmental reins and cannot regain them
through open-market purchases from current
titleholders. Pp. 1221.
(a) The Court rejects the theory of OIN and the
United States that, because Oneida II recognized the
Oneidas aboriginal title to their ancient reservation
land and because the Tribe has now acquired the
specific parcels at issue in the open market, it has
unified fee and aboriginal title and may now assert
sovereign dominion over the parcels. The Oneidas
sought only money damages in Oneida II, see 470 U.S.,
at 229, and the Court reserved the question whether
"equitable considerations" should limit the relief
available to the present-day Oneidas, id., at 253, n.
27. Substantive questions of rights and duties are
very different from remedial questions. Here, OIN
seeks declaratory and injunctive relief recognizing
its present and future sovereign immunity from local
taxation on parcels the Tribe purchased in the open
market, properties that had been subject to state and
local taxation for generations. The appropriateness of
such relief must be evaluated in light of the long
history of state sovereign control over the territory.
From the early 1800s into the 1970s, the United
States largely accepted, or was indifferent to, New
Yorks governance of the land in question and the
validity vel non of the Oneidas sales to the State.
Moreover, the properties here involved have greatly
increased in value sinc
|
| |
| |
|
