United States v. New York

Reuters Article on Oneida Land Claims Cases

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

ALBANY, N.Y., Oct. 18 (Reuters) – In a decision that could have implications for Native American tribes nationwide, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear an appeal by the Oneida Indian Nation seeking compensation for 250,000 acres of former tribal lands illegally purchased by New York in the 18th and 19th centuries.

The suit, first filed in 1974, alleged New York violated federal law when it purchased the land without Congressional approval. The suit claims the land, bought in central New York between 1795 and 1846, is now worth more than $500 million.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit tossed out the case last August, ruling that while the purchase of the land was illegal, granting the nation’s claims would be too disruptive to the state, local governments and the current owners of the land in question.

Continue reading →

Commentary on Supreme Court’s Denial of Oneida Land Claims Petitions

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Two things immediately spring to mind on the denial of the Oneida land claims petitions.

The first is that the federal government’s persuasive oomph (with the OSG as the so-called “Tenth Justice”) loses a ton of force when siding with tribal interests. No big surprise to me there. But it must be a little strange for the Justices to see the United States so vehemently demanding to be let off the hook for their breaches of trust toward Indian tribes in Tohono O’odham and Jicarilla and almost in the same breath ask for the Court to review Indian land claims dismissals. The government’s filings before the Court in Indian affairs are two-sided, even a little schizophrenic.

Second, Justice Ginsburg seems to be stepping in Justice Stevens’ role as the the most senior Justice with an interest in limiting the damage to tribal interests in the Supreme Court. And like Justice Stevens, she wrote some negative opinions against tribal interests. But her earlier opinions appear to have swaths of broad dicta that lower courts and the Supreme Court are now leaping at in order to reject more recent tribal claims. I’m thinking of her opinion in Strate, which technically applied only to non-Indian lands on reservation, which Justice Scalia attempted to expand to Indian lands in Hicks; and also now her opinion in Sherrill, which was ostensibly about taxation immunities but now applies broadly (at least in the Second Circuit) to all tribal land claims. Both times she appears to be trying to reel in the Court in applying her dicta in earlier cases, and both times unsuccessfully.

Also, Justice Sotomayor backs up her statement about Indian law being a focus for her.

Supreme Court Denies Cert in Oneida Land Claims Petitions — Ginsburg and Sotomayor Would Grant Petitions

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here is the order list.

The Court also denied cert in Seneca Telephone v. Miami Tribe.

Supreme Court Fails to Act on Oneida Land Claims Petitions

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is today’s order.

Well, the rule of thumb seems to be that if the petition isn’t granted in the first relisting, then the chances of a grant go way down. Our guess is that a Justice or two is writing a dissent to the denial of certiorari. At this point, that seems like the best conceivable outcome. Of course, Court could be considering a summary reversal, but that’s extremely rare.

Oneida Land Claims Petitions Listed on SCOTUSBlog’s Relist List

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

United States v. New York (relisted after the 9/26 Conference)

Docket:  10-1404

Issue(s):  Whether the United States may be barred from enforcing the Nonintercourse Act against a state that repeatedly purchased and resold (at a substantial profit) Indian lands in violation of the Act between 1795 and 1846, based on the passage of time and the transfer of the unlawfully obtained Indian lands into the hands of third parties, when the United States seeks monetary relief only against the state.

Certiorari stage documents:

 

Oneida Nation of New York v. County of Oneida, New York (relisted after the 9/26 Conference)

Docket:  10-1420

Issue(s):  (1) Whether the court of appeals contravened this Court’s decisions inOneida Indian Nation of New York v. County of Oneida and City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation by ruling that “equitable considerations”  rendered petitioners’ claims for money damages for the dispossession of their tribal lands in violation of federal law void ab initio; and (2) whether the court of appeals impermissibly encroached on the legislative power of Congress by relying on “equitable considerations” to bar petitioners’ claims as untimely, even though they were brought within the statute of limitations fixed by Congress for the precise tribal land claims at issue.

Certiorari stage documents:

Navajo Nation v. EEOC Denied; Oneida Land Claim Uncertain — UPDATED

Kate Fort

The Supreme Court released its order list for the week, and all the Navajo Nation/Peabody Coal claims were denied. The Oneida land claim has not yet been granted or denied. It is possible the case may be relisted for another conference, though that’s not entirely clear. The order is here.

Update: The Court has relisted the petitions for the October 7 conference.

Supreme Court Order List from Long Conference: No Oneida or Navajo Grants

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is today’s order list. Next week, the Court will issue the order list of denials.

Presumably, that means United States v. New York, Oneida Indian Nation v. Oneida County, EEOC v. Peabody Western Coal Co., Navajo Nation v. EEOC, and Peabody Western Coal Co. v. EEOC have all been denied, although that won’t be confirmed until later.

U.S. v. New York/Oneida Indian Nation v. Oneida County — SCOTUSblog Petitions to Watch

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

No surprise here. Here they are, from the SCOTUSblog site:

Title: United States v. State of New York
Docket: 10-1404
Issue(s): Whether the United States may be barred from enforcing the Nonintercourse Act against a state that repeatedly purchased and resold (at a substantial profit) Indian lands in violation of the Act between 1795 and 1846, based on the passage of time and the transfer of the unlawfully obtained Indian lands into the hands of third parties, when the United States seeks monetary relief only against the state.

Certiorari stage documents:

Title: Oneida Nation of New York v. County of Oneida, New York
Docket: 10-1420
Issue(s): (1) Whether the court of appeals contravened this Court’s decisions in Oneida Indian Nation of New York v. County of Oneida and City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation by ruling that “equitable considerations” rendered petitioners’ claims for money damages for the dispossession of their tribal lands in violation of federal law void ab initio; and (2) whether the court of appeals impermissibly encroached on the legislative power of Congress by relying on “equitable considerations” to bar petitioners’ claims as untimely, even though they were brought within the statute of limitations fixed by Congress for the precise tribal land claims at issue.

Certiorari stage documents:

Cert Stage Reply Briefs in United States v. New York & Oneida Indian Nation v. Oneida County

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

United States Cert Stage Reply Brief

OIN Reply Cert Stage

Cert Opposition Brief in U.S. v. New York and Oneida v. Oneida County

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

US v NY — Cert Opp