The U.S. Supreme Court's March 29 decision in the city of Sherrill vs. Oneida Indian Nation case is being celebrated as a major - and rare - victory for non-Indian property owners.
The case blocked tribes from buying land within their New York land claim area in order to return the property to sovereign status, a decision that cleared the way for municipalities to begin collecting taxes and enforcing local laws.
But the high court's 22-page ruling has also bolstered some of the tribes' legal positions, and they are now using the decision to guide strategy.
Some Indian law experts are saying the Sherrill ruling affirms the validity of the land claims by the Oneidas and the other New York-based tribes.
In fact, Rob Porter, a former attorney general with the Seneca Nation and the director of the Syracuse University's law school's Center for Indigenous Law, Governance and Citizenship, said the Sherrill case even gave added credence to the land claims. Porter spoke during a conference held last week for journalists about the Indian law field.
The Sherrill case didn't address the validity of the non-Intercourse claims, said Bridget Garcia, an attorney with the Department of Interior's Office of Solicitor, who also spoke at the same conference. Many of the New York land claims are legally based on treaties negotiated by the state in violation of the federal 1790 Non-Intercourse Act, which required Congressional approval of all new Indian treaties.
Both the Cayuga Nation of New York and the Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma recently filed briefs with the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals arguing the Sherrill case supports their cross-appeal of the 2001 $247.9 billion judgment award in the claim.
The 2nd Circuit is now hearing appeals on the 2001 jury trial decision finding in favor of the tribes that the state illegally obtained 64,000 of the tribes' historic territory. The state appealed the decision seeking a smaller judgment, and the tribes cross-appealed the decision seeking $1.7 billion in damages.
The tribes were asked to indicate how they thought the Sherrill case would affect their claim. The case over the land area cup -ping Cayuga Lake in both Cayuga and Seneca counties has been stayed pending the Sherrill decision.
Daniel French, an attorney for Clint Halftown, the Cayuga Nations' current federal representative, also said the Sherrill case "didn't disturb the fact that the lands were illegally purchased by the state .... (the Cayugas are) still entitled for damages for lands illegally purchased."
William Dorr, the attorney representing Cayuga County in the land claim, did not respond to requests for an interview.
Another attorney in the Indian law field said the language of the Sherrill decision didn't disrupt the tribes' right to claim the land. But Sarah Krakoff, an associate professor with extensive experience in Indian tax cases at the University of Colorado School of Law, said the case involves a huge change.
"If tribes do get land back that was originally part of their claim to their aboriginal territory, they aren't instantly entitled to the all of the immunities of what's normally called tribal trust land," she said.
Krakow also said the language of the case reflects the slow abandonment by the Supreme Court of generally interpreting statutes in favor of the tribes if there is ambiguity in the laws. Past decisions generally sided in favor of tribal arguments that the historical wrong of their land being taken must be redressed.
The Sherrill case is the "final nail in the coffin for tribes being able to argue lands they owned in fee should be free from state and local taxation," Krakow said.
The Oneidas' land outside of their 30-acre reservation is considered land "owned in fee." Such land status developed after the 1887 General Allotment Act, which divided tribal land into individual parcels assigned to individual Indians. The law's goal was the assimilation of Indians from a tribal, collective land-holding culture, but as the land became the property of individual tribal members and subject to taxes, many Indian allottees often sold the land when they were unable to pay.
The Sherrill case ruling said because of the lapse in time from when land in Madison and Oneida counties was lost by the Oneidas and because of current non-Indian character of the land, the Oneidas' reacquired property is not exempt from local taxes and other regulation.
The Sherrill case was primarily a taxation case, in which the Supreme Court indicated that open-market land purchases were not the means for tribes to seek their land being free of taxation and other governmental regulation, Garcia said. But the justices still allowed - and even pointed out in their ruling - that the tribes can apply to the federal government for their land to be placed in trust.
No tribes currently have land held in trust on their behalf by the federal government in New York state, but the Akwesane/St. Regis Mohawks, the Oneidas and the Cayugas have applied for that status since the Supreme Court ruling.
The land-in-trust application process through the Department of Interior is a lengthy, involved process and does not always result in favor of the tribes, Garcia said.
"If the stars are aligned and everything, it's not a closed possibility - just more, more difficult" for tribes get land held in trust, Garcia said.
Staff writer Amaris Elliott-Engel can be reached at 253-5311 x282 or at amaris.elliot-engel@lee.net
But the high court's 22-page ruling has also bolstered some of the tribes' legal positions, and they are now using the decision to guide strategy.
Some Indian law experts are saying the Sherrill ruling affirms the validity of the land claims by the Oneidas and the other New York-based tribes.
In fact, Rob Porter, a former attorney general with the Seneca Nation and the director of the Syracuse University's law school's Center for Indigenous Law, Governance and Citizenship, said the Sherrill case even gave added credence to the land claims. Porter spoke during a conference held last week for journalists about the Indian law field.
The Sherrill case didn't address the validity of the non-Intercourse claims, said Bridget Garcia, an attorney with the Department of Interior's Office of Solicitor, who also spoke at the same conference. Many of the New York land claims are legally based on treaties negotiated by the state in violation of the federal 1790 Non-Intercourse Act, which required Congressional approval of all new Indian treaties.
Both the Cayuga Nation of New York and the Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma recently filed briefs with the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals arguing the Sherrill case supports their cross-appeal of the 2001 $247.9 billion judgment award in the claim.
The 2nd Circuit is now hearing appeals on the 2001 jury trial decision finding in favor of the tribes that the state illegally obtained 64,000 of the tribes' historic territory. The state appealed the decision seeking a smaller judgment, and the tribes cross-appealed the decision seeking $1.7 billion in damages.
The tribes were asked to indicate how they thought the Sherrill case would affect their claim. The case over the land area cup -ping Cayuga Lake in both Cayuga and Seneca counties has been stayed pending the Sherrill decision.
Daniel French, an attorney for Clint Halftown, the Cayuga Nations' current federal representative, also said the Sherrill case "didn't disturb the fact that the lands were illegally purchased by the state .... (the Cayugas are) still entitled for damages for lands illegally purchased."
William Dorr, the attorney representing Cayuga County in the land claim, did not respond to requests for an interview.
Another attorney in the Indian law field said the language of the Sherrill decision didn't disrupt the tribes' right to claim the land. But Sarah Krakoff, an associate professor with extensive experience in Indian tax cases at the University of Colorado School of Law, said the case involves a huge change.
"If tribes do get land back that was originally part of their claim to their aboriginal territory, they aren't instantly entitled to the all of the immunities of what's normally called tribal trust land," she said.
Krakow also said the language of the case reflects the slow abandonment by the Supreme Court of generally interpreting statutes in favor of the tribes if there is ambiguity in the laws. Past decisions generally sided in favor of tribal arguments that the historical wrong of their land being taken must be redressed.
The Sherrill case is the "final nail in the coffin for tribes being able to argue lands they owned in fee should be free from state and local taxation," Krakow said.
The Oneidas' land outside of their 30-acre reservation is considered land "owned in fee." Such land status developed after the 1887 General Allotment Act, which divided tribal land into individual parcels assigned to individual Indians. The law's goal was the assimilation of Indians from a tribal, collective land-holding culture, but as the land became the property of individual tribal members and subject to taxes, many Indian allottees often sold the land when they were unable to pay.
The Sherrill case ruling said because of the lapse in time from when land in Madison and Oneida counties was lost by the Oneidas and because of current non-Indian character of the land, the Oneidas' reacquired property is not exempt from local taxes and other regulation.
The Sherrill case was primarily a taxation case, in which the Supreme Court indicated that open-market land purchases were not the means for tribes to seek their land being free of taxation and other governmental regulation, Garcia said. But the justices still allowed - and even pointed out in their ruling - that the tribes can apply to the federal government for their land to be placed in trust.
No tribes currently have land held in trust on their behalf by the federal government in New York state, but the Akwesane/St. Regis Mohawks, the Oneidas and the Cayugas have applied for that status since the Supreme Court ruling.
The land-in-trust application process through the Department of Interior is a lengthy, involved process and does not always result in favor of the tribes, Garcia said.
"If the stars are aligned and everything, it's not a closed possibility - just more, more difficult" for tribes get land held in trust, Garcia said.
Staff writer Amaris Elliott-Engel can be reached at 253-5311 x282 or at amaris.elliot-engel@lee.net
The Citizens' Say
There are No comments posted.