Northern District of New York

Federal Court Dismisses Additional Challenges to Oneida Trust Acquisition

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is Judge Kahn’s order in New York v. Salazar (New York v Salazar DCT Order), the companion case to Oneida County v. Salazar. Once again, Judge Kahn rejects the nondelegation doctrine challenge, as well as Tenth Amendment and IGRA-related challenges. Also, and perhaps a more interesting development, the court rejected the State’s arguments relating to whether OIN is eligble for a trust acquisition.

The first argument was that OIN rejected the Indian Reorganization Act in 1935:

The ROD indicates that the OIN voted to reject the IRA but does not address whether the vote satisfied the statutory requirement. See Siegfried Aff., Ex. A. at 33 (Dkt. No. 57, Attach. 3); OIN’s Statement of Facts ¶ 1 (Dkt. No. 84, Attach 9). It is, therefore, an issue of fact whether the OIN validly voted to reject the IRA. However, it is unnecessary to decide whether the OIN rejected the IRA, as Congress enacted the Indian Land Consolidation Act (“ILCA”), 25 U.S.C. § 220214 (“Section 2202”) to amend or repeal any possible Section 478 trust land disability. See 25 U.S.C. § 2202.

The second relates to the Secretary of Interior’s position (first raised in the Carcieri litigation) that the Indian Land Consolidation Act amendments allow for a tribe potentially affected by Carcieri to be eligible for trust acquisitions:

A principle purpose of both the IRA and ILCA was to restore Indian economic life through expanding tribal land bases. The IRA was promulgated in 1934 as “[a]n Act to conserve and develop Indian lands and resources.” 48 Stat. 984 (1934). “The intent and purpose of the [IRA] was ‘to rehabilitate the Indian’s economic life and give him a chance to develop the initiative destroyed by a century of oppression and paternalism.’” Mescalero Apache Tribe v. Jones, 411 U.S. 145, 152-54 (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 1804, 73d Cong., 2d Sess., 6 (1934)); see also Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535, 542 (1974) (“The overriding purpose of the [IRA] was to establish machinery whereby Indian tribes would be able to assume a greater degree of self-government, both politically and economically”). ILCA was subsequently enacted in 1983 to further effectuate this purpose by, inter alia, removing the Section 478 disability and expanding the reach of the IRA and Section 465, specifically. See H.R. Rep. No. 97-908, 7 (1982) (“Section 203 [25 U.S.C. § 2202] extends the provisions of section 5 of the Act of June 18, 1834 [i.e., the IRA] to all tribes.”).
Restricting the definition of “tribe” under Section 2201(1) to only include tribes for which the
United States already holds land in trust would vitiate the very purpose and intent of ILCA.

This is the first court to address this question, and they accepted the Secretary’s position. Very interesting.

Federal Court Dismisses Effort to Enforce Billion-Dollar Judgment Against Harrah’s

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

But not on Indian law grounds — because the case was settled orally in 2003.

Vacco v Harrah’s DCT Order

An excerpt:

A balancing of the Winston factors tips decidedly in favor of the conclusion that a binding oral settlement agreement was reached on March 31, 2003 ending the litigation in this Court over the Tribal Court Judgment. “[T]o protect the parties appearing before it, to preserve the integrity of an action, to maintain its ability to render a final judgment and to ensure the administration of justice,” Haitian Ctrs., 817 F. Supp. at 337, the Court finds that the prior actions were finally dismissed by virtue of the oral settlement agreement entered on March 31, 2003. See Mone, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19445, 2001 WL 1518263, at *1 (finding that the action had been settled even though the formal stipulation was never submitted where defense counsel wrote the court confirming a conversation with the judge’s law clerk that the matter had been settled and stating that a formal stipulation would be drafted and forwarded to the court within three weeks); Van Ness, 129 A.D.2d at 932, 514 N.Y.S.2d at 571 (finding that an out-of-court oral agreement to settle as case was binding even though defendant never executed the general release and stipulation discontinuing the action forwarded by defendant counsel). Accordingly, because the subject matter of this action has been asserted in a prior action and settled by an oral agreement to end that matter with prejudice, Defendants’ motion must be granted and this action dismissed. The Court need not, and does not, reach the alternative arguments for dismissal.

Federal Court Rejects Constitutional Challenges to Fee to Trust Statute in Oneida Trust Acquisition Case

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here is the opinion — Oneida County v Salazar

Materials later….

Complaint in St. Regis Mohawk v. Paterson

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the complaint in the matter reported here — article via Indianz.

St Regis Mohawk Tribe v Paterson Complaint

The file includes a copy of the 1796 Treaty with the Seven Nations of Canada that is the subject of the complaint.

Lawyer Threatened with Rule 11 Sanctions If Brings Another Claim against Oneida Indian Nation

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Smith v. Oneida Employment Services (smith-v-oneida-dct-order), out of the Northern District of New York. Indianz and others have reported on this case, which was an employment claim dismissed on grounds of sovereign immunity. Here is the footnote regarding Rule 11 (and for more discussion on Rule 11 see my paper here):

Although the Court could sanction Plaintiff’s counsel for violating Rule 11 based on several of the factual allegations and legal arguments that he has submitted to the Court in this litigation, it will not do so at this time. However, the Court advises Plaintiff’s counsel that the Court will not tolerate such conduct in the future and will not hesitate to impose sanctions on him for any future violations.

Stockbridge Munsee Community v. US — Case Transferred to N.D.N.Y.

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

This is a fee to trust case, originally filed in D.C., now transferred to New York to be litigated along with several Haudenosaunee cases. Here are the materials:

stockbridge-munsee-v-us-dct-order

interior-motion-to-transfer

stockbridge-munsee-brief-in-opposition

interior-reply-brief

Western Mohegan Motion for Reconsideration (N.D. N.Y.)

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

The non-federally recognized Indian tribe Western Mohegan tribe sought to avoid county taxes on its land, and a resulting foreclosure for failure to pay.

Here are the materials:

Motion for Reconsideration

Continue reading →

St. Regis Mohawk’s $3B Suit against Harrah’s re: Interference with Gaming Contract

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

The Northern District of New York refused to dismiss a claim seeking to enforce a tribal court judgment against Harrah’s for an amount (including interest) approaching $3 Billion. The case is Vacco v. Harrah’s Operating Co., Inc.

Legal materials and news coverage below:

Continue reading →