City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of N. Y., 544 U.S. 197 (2005)
Primary Holding
The Oneida Indian Nation cannot unilaterally revive its ancient sovereignty over lands purchased in an open market, as they have long relinquished governmental authority, and such a revival would disrupt the established governance of local municipalities.
In the case of City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y., the Supreme Court ruled that the Oneida Indian Nation could not claim sovereignty over land they bought in New York, which they had lost control of long ago. This matters because it helps maintain the authority of local governments and prevents disruptions in how communities are run. If you're living near land that was once owned by a Native American tribe, this case is relevant because it clarifies that tribes can't just reclaim control of land they buy without considering the local laws and governance that have been in place for generations.
AI-generated plain-language summary to help you understand this case
In the case of City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York, the underlying dispute centers on properties in the city of Sherrill, New York, that were purchased by the Oneida Indian Nation (OIN) in 1997 and 1998. These parcels of land were historically part of the Oneidas' 300,000-acre reservation, which they last possessed as a tribal entity in 1805. Following the loss of their lands, governance of the area transitioned to the State of New York and its local governments. The Oneida Nation sought to resist paying property taxes to the city of Sherrill, arguing that their acquisition of these lands revived their sovereignty over them, thereby negating the city's regulatory authority. The procedural history of the case began with the Oneida Nation's claim against the city regarding tax obligations, which led to litigation that eventually reached the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The case was then brought before the Supreme Court on a writ of certiorari, where the Court was tasked with determining the validity of the Oneida Nation's claim to sovereignty over the purchased properties and the implications of their historical land loss. Relevant background context includes the historical relationship between the Oneida Nation and the State of New York, characterized by treaties and land cessions dating back to the Revolutionary War. The Oneida Nation, once a powerful entity with significant territorial claims, faced increasing pressure to cede their lands, culminating in the Treaty of Fort Schuyler in 1788, where they ceded most of their lands to the state while retaining a reservation. Over the years, the Oneida Nation's presence in the area diminished, and by the time of the dispute, the region had developed a distinctly non-Indian character, complicating the Tribe's claim to revive sovereignty over lands purchased in the open market.
Whether the Oneida Indian Nation can unilaterally revive its ancient sovereignty over properties purchased in the City of Sherrill, New York, thereby exempting itself from local property taxation.
The judgment is reversed.
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Decision Date
- January 11, 2005
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Case Type
- landmark
- Majority Author
- Ginsburg
- Damages Awarded
- N/A
- Data Quality
- high
Cherokee Nation of Okla. v. Leavitt, 543 U.S. 631 (2005)
Consumer WonThe Government's promises to pay contract support costs to Indian tribes under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act are legally binding, even if Congress did not appropriate sufficient funds for those costs.
Wagnon v. Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation, 546 U.S. 95 (2005)
Consumer LostThe application of the Kansas motor fuel tax to fuel received by non-Indian distributors, which is subsequently delivered to a gas station on the Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation's reservation, does not violate the Nation's sovereignty because the tax arises from a transaction that occurs off the reservation, and thus the Bracker interest-balancing test does not apply.
San Remo Hotel, L. P. v. City and County of San Francisco, 545 U.S. 323 (2005)
Consumer LostFederal courts cannot create an exception to the full faith and credit statute, 28 U.S.C. §1738, for claims brought under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, thereby affirming that state court decisions on takings claims must be respected in federal court.
Orff v. United States, 545 U.S. 596 (2005)
Consumer LostCongress did not waive the United States' sovereign immunity for suits brought by third-party beneficiaries under the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982, and therefore, individuals who are not parties to a government contract cannot sue the United States for breach of that contract.