The Associated Press

In a stunning reversal, a federal court ruled Tuesday the Cayuga Indians are not entitled to a $248 million land claim judgment awarded them by a lower court.

In a split 2-1 decision, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals cited the U.S. Supreme Court's recent ruling in the tax case involving the Oneida Indians and the upstate New York city of Sherrill, that said too many years had passed for the Oneidas to claim their reacquired former reservation lands were again sovereign and tax-exempt.

"The present case must be dismissed because the same considerations that doomed the Oneidas' claim in Sherrill apply with equal force here," Justice Jose Cabranes wrote.

Cabranes and Justice Rosemary Pooler said those considerations included the passage of so much time; that most of the tribe moved elsewhere; the tribe's long delay in seeking relief; and the "long-standing, distinctly non-Indian character of the area and its inhabitants."

As a result the appeals court reversed and dismissed the Cayuga's entire 25-year-old land claim. The two judges also concluded that the Cayugas claim for trespass damages could not go forward "for the simple reason that there can be no trespass unless the Cayugas possessed the land in question."

Justice Janet Hall wrote a lengthy dissent saying she believed her fellow judges were misreading the Sherrill decision and that it did not require dismissal of the claim, nor should it prevent the Cayugas from seeking monetary damages.

"This is a complete victory, a complete vindication. The game is over. We win," said attorney William Dorr, who represented Cayuga and Seneca counties.

Gov. George Pataki called it "a tremendous victory for the property owners and taxpayers of central New York."

"This wasn't remanded. This was reversed and dismissed," said Christine Pritchard, a spokeswoman for Attorney General Eliot Spitzer. "This is significant, and precedent-setting. This is the same court that will oversee the rest of New York's land claims."

The Cayuga case is the only Indian land claim in New York to make it through the courts. The Oneidas, Onondagas, Mohawks and Senecas also have land claims pending against New York.

Attorney Glenn Feldman, who represented the Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma, said the appeals court decision "came out of left field" and was totally unexpected, even in the wake of Sherrill.

"We're pretty disappointed. We think these two judges interpreted Sherrill far more broadly than the Supreme Court intended," Feldman said.

"If this ruling stands up, it will be the death-knell for all Indian land claims based on a historic-taking of land," said Martin Gold, the attorney representing the Cayuga Indian Nation of New York.

"This is a radical decision, goes far beyond Sherrill and is quite inconsistent with precedent," Gold said. "But this has been a long war. We've won some battles, lost some battles. But the war is not over."

Gold and Feldman said they would be discussing options with tribal leaders, which include asking the three-member panel to reconsider the case; asking the entire 2nd Circuit Court to review it, or petitioning the Supreme Court to hear it.

The Cayugas filed their land claim in 1980 but it wasn't until 1994 that U.S. District Judge Neal McCurn ruled New York state illegally acquired 64,015 acres of tribal land in Seneca and Cayuga counties by entering into invalid treaties with the Cayugas without receiving congressional ratification, required by a 1790 law.

A jury awarded the two tribes $36.9 million in damages in 2000 for the land's current worth and the loss of two centuries of fair market rental value. McCurn added $211 million in interest in 2001.

The tribes were seeking affirmation of McCurn's rulings, but challenged his determination of damages and interest, saying they were entitled to a $1.7 billion judgment.

The state asked for the award to be reduced, or dismissed.

The appeals court noted its decision was not a reflection on McCurn's efforts and rulings during the 25-year long case.

The justices said they "recognize and applaud the thoughtful and painstaking efforts" of McCurn but that the "legal backdrop had evolved since the district court rulings" and McCurn could not have anticipated the Supreme Court's decision in the Sherrill case.