Indian land claims

Commentary on the Oneida Land Claim Debacle in the Second Circuit

Matthew L.M. Fletcher3 Comments

As Indianz reported yesterday, the Second Circuit has once again applied the so-called Sherrill defenses to the New York land claims, this time to the Oneida Indian Nation (opinion here, briefs here).

First, it is all but certain that the once mighty Eastern land claims based on the Non-Intercourse Act violations of the late 18th century are all but dead. There may come a scenario where the Second Circuit sitting en banc or perhaps the First or Third Circuits issue an opinion declining to apply the Sherrill defenses to a NIA claim, but it’s doubtful. And even if that happened, Supreme Court review is virtually guaranteed (both because of the resulting split in authority and because of the state interests involved), with the predictable 5-4 result (assuming the tribal interests can persuade even that many to dissent).

Land claims and other claims based on treaty rights seem to have been successful for the time being, but time will tell on those claims.

Frankly, a new strategy is needed, and perhaps it’s time to review why the Eastern land claims were relatively successful in the first place. I believe it’s the federal government’s fear of United States liability for failing to prevent the fraudulent land sales and illegal tax foreclosures of Indian lands. The entire face of Indian land claim statutory law is based on this fear, including the 1982 statute passed to eliminate the statute of limitations for Indian land claims (28 U.S.C. 2415(a)). Maybe it’s time to remind Congress and the DOJ of the government’s potential liability, though the Cobell settlement, the American Indian farmer and African-American farmer settlements indicate Congress could really care less about liability. One thing in which the Rehnquist/Roberts Courts have been incredibly successful is preserving and bolstering federal and state (and even tribal) sovereign immunity.

Continue reading →

Carrie Garrow on Haudenosaunee Land Claims

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Carrie Garrow has published “Following Deskaheh’s Legacy: Reclaiming the Cayuga Indian Nation’s Land Rights at the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights” in the Syracuse Journal of International Law and Commerce. Here is the intro:

Deskaheh, Chief of the Younger Bear Clan of the Cayuga Nation in the 1920s, prepared the path for international recognition of Haudenosaunee (People of the Longhouse) sovereignty and human rights. An eloquent orator and resolute leader, he spent many years advocating for international recognition of Haudenosaunee sovereignty and treaty violations by Canada. In 1921, as Speaker of the Six Nations Council, he traveled on a passport issued by his nation to seek British aid to halt Canada’s attempt to overthrow the traditional form of government and impose an elected band council. Despite failing to convince the British to intervene and protect the treaty they had signed with the Six Nations living in Grand River, Deskaheh returned to Europe in 1923. He traveled to Geneva to “bring his peoples’ case before the League of Nations.” While he fought to receive permission to appear before the League, the Canadian government, in violation of Haudenosaunee sovereignty and treaties, announced a “free election” under armed guard of twenty Canadian police at Grand River to determine whether or not the Six Nations Government of Grand River Land should be dissolved. Meanwhile back in Geneva, Deskaheh was denied permission to appear before the League’s plenary session, despite the Netherlands and Albania’s support of his petition. Determined to educate the world about the violation of his people’s rights, Deskaheh presented his nation’s case at a press conference attended by many nations and “[w]hen he finished, there was a moment of silence–then the roar of a tremendous ovation. Thousands rose to their feet to cheer him and the great hall echoed and re-echoed with their applause.” At the end of 1924, Deskaheh returned to the United States, an exile from Canada unable to cross the border. Although Deskaheh thought himself a failure, “he found that the people for whom he had fought did not think him a failure. From their northern homes in Grand River Land, they journeyed here to see him and assure him of their loyalty.”

Continue reading →

Kate Fort on The New Laches

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Kate Fort of MSU College of Law has posted “The New Laches” on SSRN. This is the first comprehensive and historical study of the application of laches doctrine to sovereigns, federal, state, and tribal. Here is the abstract:

Tribal land claims are facing a new challenge from an old area of law. Courts have been paying special attention to the law of equity and how it can defeat tribal land claims. Specifically, the equitable defenses of laches, acquiescence, and impossibility were used by the Supreme Court to hand defeat to the Oneida Indian Nation on a tax issue. Since then, lower courts in the Second Circuit have used this precedent to deny Indian land claims. But are these three defenses based on precedent themselves? Rarely. Instead, they have been combined to create a new defense, what I will call the “new laches.” This new defense, so far used successfully in Indian land cases in New York state and unsuccessfully elsewhere, has been so broadly construed by the Second Circuit that, if this view is adopted nationwide, it could apply to any treaty-based claim brought by Indians or Indian tribes.

Unalachtigo Band v. New Jersey — Order on Motion to Dismiss

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

In this case, the underlying suit was brought by non-federally recognized tribe to establish a land claim and perhaps federal recognition. The Stockbridge-Munsee Mohicans sought intervenor status to file a motion to dismiss on Rule 19 (indispensable party) grounds (again, my favorite rule). The district court denied the motion to dismiss, noting that the original plaintiffs had no standing anyway.

dct-opinion-on-motion-to-dismiss

Research Note on Barriers to Indian Land Claims

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

I’ve posted a short paper called “‘Now What the Hell You Gonna Do in Those Days?’ A Research Note on Practical Barriers to Indian Land Claims” on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

There are extra-legal barriers that American Indian people faced when confronted with the illegal theft of their lands, or with any dispossession of their lands. Indian tribes and Indian people faced numerous practical barriers to bringing land and treaty claims prior to the modern era, including without limitation: (1) lack of financial resources; (2) lack of knowledge and sophistication about the American legal system; (3) demoralization; (4) lack of a clear and authorized tribal governmental plaintiff; and (5) government interference and control over tribal affairs.

For Indian tribes pursuing a remedy for these claims, there is a significant defense raised – why didn’t the tribes or the Indians bring these claims before? Since the Supreme Court decided Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Tribe, the equitable defense of laches has been raised by states, local units of government, and property owners against the tribal claims with frightening success rates. The defense is superficially compelling in large part because the practical reasons for failing to bring suit decades sooner might not be considered excusable.

In a pending case, Oneida Indian Nation v. County of Oneida, the National Congress of American Indians attempted to flesh out the practical barriers to tribal land claims in an amicus brief. This short Essay attempts to add to that research. But the ultimate purpose of this Essay is to call for serious empirical research on this difficult question – why didn’t Indians and tribes file suit to vindicate their rights to land?