Lexplug logoLexplug

City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of NY

Supreme Court of the United States
2005 U.S. LEXIS 2927, 161 L. Ed. 2d 386, 544 U.S. 197 (2005)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

An Indian tribe cannot unilaterally revive its ancient sovereignty over former reservation land acquired in the open market after a long period of non-possession and state governance. Equitable doctrines such as laches, acquiescence, and impossibility preclude the tribe from reasserting sovereign control and gaining tax immunity over such parcels.


Facts:

  • In the late 18th century, treaties including the Treaty of Fort Schuyler (1788) and the Treaty of Canandaigua (1794) established a 300,000-acre reservation for the Oneida Indian Nation in what is now central New York.
  • Beginning in 1795, New York State acquired most of this reservation land from the Oneidas, often in transactions that did not have the federal approval required by the Nonintercourse Act.
  • The specific parcels of land at issue were transferred by the Oneida Nation to a tribal member in 1805, who subsequently sold the land to a non-Indian in 1807.
  • For nearly two centuries, the properties were held by non-Indian owners and were subject to governance and taxation by the State of New York and its political subdivisions, including the City of Sherrill.
  • During this period, the area's population became overwhelmingly non-Indian, and the land was significantly developed.
  • In 1997 and 1998, the Oneida Indian Nation of New York (OIN), a federally recognized successor to the original Nation, purchased the parcels at issue in open-market transactions.
  • After reacquiring the properties, OIN asserted that they were exempt from property taxes levied by the City of Sherrill on the grounds that the purchases revived the tribe's ancient sovereignty.

Procedural Posture:

  • The Oneida Indian Nation of New York (OIN) refused to pay property taxes assessed by the City of Sherrill.
  • The City of Sherrill commenced eviction proceedings against OIN in state court.
  • OIN filed a separate action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, seeking equitable relief to enjoin the City of Sherrill from taxing its properties.
  • The U.S. District Court, a court of first instance, granted summary judgment in favor of OIN, ruling that the properties were tax-exempt.
  • The City of Sherrill, as appellant, appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, an intermediate appellate court.
  • A divided panel of the Second Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, holding the lands constituted 'Indian country' and were therefore not taxable by the city.
  • The City of Sherrill, as petitioner, sought a writ of certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court, which was granted.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does an Indian tribe's open-market purchase of land that was part of its historical reservation, but has been out of tribal control and subject to state and local jurisdiction for nearly 200 years, unilaterally revive the tribe's sovereignty over those parcels, thereby exempting them from local property taxation?


Opinions:

Majority - Justice Ginsburg

No. A tribe cannot unilaterally revive its ancient sovereignty over parcels of land it reacquires on the open market after the land has been outside of tribal control and under state jurisdiction for generations. The court held that equitable doctrines preclude the tribe from rekindling embers of sovereignty that long ago grew cold. The long lapse of time, during which New York continuously exercised regulatory jurisdiction, created justifiable expectations among the area's residents that state and local governance would continue. The doctrines of laches, acquiescence, and impossibility render OIN's claim for equitable relief inequitable, as a piecemeal, unilateral revival of tribal sovereignty would create a 'checkerboard' of jurisdiction, disrupting the administration of state and local government. The proper mechanism for a tribe to reestablish sovereign authority over land is through the federal trust acquisition process under 25 U.S.C. § 465, which considers the interests of all stakeholders.


Concurring - Justice Souter

No. The concurring opinion agrees with the majority's conclusion and writes separately to emphasize that the tribe's long period of inaction is not merely a remedial consideration but is central to the substantive claim of right itself. The tribe's failure to assert sovereignty over the parcels for two centuries is a critical fact in determining whether sovereign status can be recognized today. Because this inaction is foundational to the claim of sovereign status, it is appropriate for the court to consider it, even though it was not a separate question presented for review.


Dissenting - Justice Stevens

Yes. The tribe's reacquired properties are exempt from local taxation because they are located within the historical boundaries of its reservation, which Congress has never disestablished. The Court assumes the land is 'Indian Country,' and settled law dictates that such land is immune from state and local taxation unless Congress explicitly revokes that immunity, which it has not done. The majority's reliance on equitable defenses like laches is a novel misapplication of those doctrines and usurps Congress's plenary power over Indian affairs. It is perverse to hold that these equitable interests did not bar a damages claim for ancient wrongs in a prior case (Oneida II) but now operate to forfeit a tribe's fundamental right to tax immunity on its own reservation land.



Analysis:

This decision significantly curtails the ability of Indian tribes to reassert sovereignty over ancestral lands by purchasing them on the open market. It establishes that a legally cognizable historical claim to land (which may support a claim for damages) does not automatically translate into a revival of present-day governmental authority. The Court's application of equitable principles like laches and the 'justifiable expectations' of non-Indians creates a formidable barrier for tribes seeking to restore sovereign territory outside the Congressionally-approved administrative process. The ruling effectively directs tribes to use the land-into-trust process under 25 U.S.C. § 465, which gives federal, state, and local governments significant input, rather than relying on litigation to unilaterally reclaim jurisdiction.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of NY (2005)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"