Second Circuit – Page 9

Does the 300,000-acre ancient Oneida reservation in New York still exist, neither disestablished nor diminished, despite (1) the federal government’s actions taken in furtherance of disestablishment (including, but not limited to, the 1838 Treaty of Buffalo Creek); (2) this Court’s holding in City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York, 544 U.S. 197, 214 (2005) (“Sherrill”) that the Oneida Indian Nation of New York cannot exercise sovereignty over lands it purchases in the ancient reservation area; and (3) this Court’s finding in that case that land in the ancient reservation area has not been treated as an Indian reservation by the federal, state or local governments for nearly two centuries?

Lower court materials here.

Available Briefs in Second Circuit Appeal of Constitutional Challenge to IGRA and Seneca Compacts

November 12, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the appellee briefs in Warren v. United States:

Brief for Federal Appellees

Brief for New York Appellees

Brief for Seneca Nation Amicus

Lower court materials here.

Onondaga Nation Files En Banc Petition in Land Claims Case

November 5, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here is the petition:

Onondage En Banc Petition

The CA2 panel opinion and materials are here.

Second Circuit Decides Fourth Amendment Dispute over Search by Tribal Police

October 25, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is today’s opinion in United States v. Wilson:

US v Wilson CA2 Opinion

An excerpt:

The United States of America appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (David N. Hurd, Judge), suppressing evidence found following the stop and subsequent search of a vehicle driven by defendant Eric C. Wilson. See United States v. Wilson, 754 F. Supp. 2d 450 (N.D.N.Y. 2010). The vehicle stop was executed by two tribal police officers, one of whom was cross-designated as a U.S. customs officer. The district court concluded that the vehicle stop violated the Fourth Amendment because the officers acted without valid law enforcement authority, having stopped the vehicle in breach of jurisdictional boundaries set by state law and without having obtained prior authorization to exercise customs authority as required by federal policy governing designated customs officers. On appeal, the government does not dispute that the officers stopped Wilson in violation of state law and federal policy but argues that neither breach violates the Fourth Amendment. We hold that the violation of the federal policy governing designated customs officers did not violate the Fourth Amendment, and that the stop and subsequent search comported with the Fourth Amendment because they were justified by probable cause. We do not reach the question whether the stop was also a constitutional exercise of the officers’ New York police authority. Reversed and remanded.

Briefs here.

2nd Circuit Affirms Lower Court Dismissal of Onondaga Land Claim

October 19, 2012Kate Fort2 Comments

Here.

This appeal is decided on the basis of the equitable bar on recovery of ancestral land in City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation, 544 U.S. 197 (2005) (“Sherrill”), and this Court’s cases of Cayuga Indian Nation v. Pataki, 413 17 F.3d 266 (2d Cir. 2005) (“Cayuga”) and Oneida Indian Nation v. County of Oneida, 617 F.3d 114 (2010) (“Oneida”). Three specific factors determine when ancestral land claims are 20 foreclosed on equitable grounds: (1) “the length of time at issue between an historical injustice and the present day”; (2) “the disruptive nature of claims long delayed”; and (3) “the degree to which these claims upset the justifiable expectations of individuals and entities far removed from the events giving rise to the plaintiffs’ injury.” Oneida, 26 617 F.3d at 127; see also Sherrill, 544 U.S. at 214, 221 (summarizing that the equitable considerations in this area are similar to “doctrines of laches, acquiescence, and impossibility,” and grew from “standards of federal Indian law and federal equity practice”) (internal quotation marks omitted). All three factors support dismissal.

Previous coverage here and here.