Since the 1970s, the OIN have been involved in several lawsuits involving real property. In the 70s, the OIN filed suit seeking recovery of the original land grant contained in the 1794 Treaty of Canandaigua arguing the land was improperly transferred in violation of federal law and the US Constitution. As time progressed, the OIN began purchasing real property within this original grant as it became available. The OIN asserted its limited sovereignty status to claim the properties exempt from county and state property taxes. This culminated in several additional suits preceding the 2013 landmark agreement.
Land claim In 1970 and 1974, the OIN,
Oneida Nation of Wisconsin and the
Oneida Nation of the Thames (Canada) filed lawsuits in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of New York; they alleged that the reservation land granted to them by a treaty between the OIN and New York State was taken from the Oneida people (from their historic territory) and the treaty was never ratified by the Senate, making it unconstitutional. The state did not have authority under the US Constitution to deal directly with the Indian nations. The Oneida said that they still legally owned the lands in question. In 1970, the OIN filed a "test" case in federal court, suing Oneida and Madison counties for two years' rent (1968-1969) on county-owned acreage; the rent amounted to $16,694. The OIN argue that as the original action by the state was unconstitutional, they still owned the land and were owed rent by the counties. The
United States District Court for the Northern District of New York dismissed the action, and the OIN appealed. On July 12, 1972, the Second Circuit United States Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's decision. The OIN petitioned the
U.S. Supreme Court to grant
certiorari In
Oneida Indian Nation v. County of Oneida (1974), the Supreme Court decided in favor of the Oneida Indian Nation. On July 12, 1977, on
remand to the District Court with Judge Edmund Port presiding, the Court sided with the OIN. The counties appealed to the Second Circuit, which affirmed Judge Port's decision. The counties had argued the OIN did not have standing for its claim, and the claim was too old and should not be considered. The counties petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of
cert., which the court granted. On March 4, 1985, the U.S. Supreme Court found in favor of the OIN in a 5 to 4 vote. The Court opined on three principles: • that the OIN had a common-law right to sue in federal courts; • that such claims were justiciable; and • there was no state or federal statute of limitations that would bar such claims. The majority opinion includes the following footnote: "The question whether equitable considerations should limit the relief available to the present day Oneida Indians was not addressed by the Court of Appeals or presented to this Court by petitioners. Accordingly, we express no opinion as to whether other considerations may be relevant to the final disposition of this case should Congress not exercise its authority to resolve these far-reaching Indian claims." Justice
John Paul Stevens wrote in his dissent: "This decision upsets long-settled expectations in the ownership of real property in the Counties of Oneida and Madison, New York, and the disruption it is sure to cause will confirm the common law wisdom that ancient claims are best left in repose. The Court, no doubt, believes that it is undoing a grave historical injustice, but in so doing it has caused another, which only Congress may now rectify." In 1998, the
United States Department of Justice intervened in the lawsuits on the plaintiff's behalf in order for the claim to proceed against New York State because the state asserted its immunity under the
11th Amendment. Based on
City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation and
Cayuga Indian Nation v New York, the Defendants moved for summary judgment. On May 21, 2007, Judge Kahn dismissed the OIN's possessory land claims and allowed the non-possessory claims to proceed. Both parties appealed Judge Kahn's decision. In a decision dated August 9, 2010, the Second Circuit opined that the non-possessory claims could not proceed and remanded the case back to the district court to enter a judgement in favor of the State and Counties. The OIN appealed to the US Supreme Court.
Status of former tribal lands re-acquired on the open market speaks with attendees of the Oneida Indian Nation veterans recognition ceremony in Verona, N.Y, November 4, 2006 The OIN has purchased lands which had been part of its historic reservation, as established by treaty with New York State. These had later been sold to the state and subsequently to non-Indians. For some time, the OIN and the state believed that the OIN's purchase of the land restored the property to its status as Indian Territory under Oneida possession. State law prohibits Class III gaming facilities. The OIN developed its resort and casino on what was understood to be its federal reservation, where that action was authorized under tribal sovereignty. The city of Sherrill challenged the OIN by trying to collect property taxes on the land the tribe bought in that jurisdiction, where it developed its casino. In
City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation, US Supreme Court Justice
Ginsburg determined that the land the casino is on was part of the original tribal lands. But, Justice Ginsburg held that although the land may be part of an ancient reservation land grant, as the OIN had not controlled it for more than 200 years, during which time it was non-Indian territory, the tribe could not re-establish its immunity (from state law) over those lands. Comments on the court decision varied. The issue in
Sherrill was whether the city could levy property taxes on OIN's re-acquired tribal lands. The US Supreme Court determined that the City of Sherrill could levy property taxes. But the court failed to overturn the Second Circuit's finding that the land qualified as Indian Territory. OIN supporters argued that
Sherrill stands only to say that the OIN cannot re-instate its tax immunity, but that the land is Indian Land.
UCE and its supporters disagreed; they countered that the
Sherrill ruling provided a blanket approval for the jurisdictions to foreclose on all OIN property that owe back taxes. Some UCE members interpreted the ruling as making the OIN casino operation illegal under state law, and speculated that it should be closed until the state and the OIN reach a new agreement on gaming.
Land trust application In April 2005, the OIN applied to the Department of Interior to have this land taken into federal trust on its behalf. By letter dated June 10, 2005, Associate Deputy Secretary Cason advised
Ray Halbritter, the tribe's lead on this issue, of its position: "Department of Interior’s ("DOI") position with respect to certain issues related to the status of OIN lands ... we do not agree with [the] assertion that the Court’s ruling in Sherrill recognizes the continuation of restriction on alienation protections over recently re-acquired lands ... it is our opinion that Court in
City of Sherrill unmistakably held that the lands at issue (property interests purchased by OIN on the open market) are subject to real property taxes. In the event these taxes are not paid, we believe such lands are subject to foreclosure. Further, please be advised that the BIA is in the process of taking appropriate action to clarify that its recordation of OIN deeds does not have the legal effect of designating these lands as restricted against alienation pursuant to 25 USC 177." In order to accept the lands as federal trust property, the BIA had to prepare an
environmental assessment of the action. On February 27, 2008, the BIA released its Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on taking the lands in question into trust on behalf of the OIN. It recommended that be placed into trust. After this announcement, the DOI gave a 30-day comment period and announced that it would have a decision on or after March 25, 2008. Some government officials expressed concern about creating a "patchwork of taxable and tax-exempt properties," making a "jurisdictional nightmare." However, a sting operation conducted in conjunction with OIN Police and the Oneida County Sheriff disproved this argument. In opposing the OIN's land-into-trust application, New York State raised the question of whether the
Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) applies to the OIN, as the OIN had rejected reorganizing according to its rules, by a vote of 12 to 57 on June 17, 1936. According to the letter from Richard Platkin, Counsel to the Governor, to Franklin Keel, citing Michael T. Smith's Memorandum to Director, Office of Indian Services, Bureau of Indian Affairs, dated February 24, 1982, "the Oneida were considered not eligible, but in a reconsideration based on the discussion in the case of 'US v Boylan', the Department of Interior changed its position and conducted the referendum." The OIN have noted that, as early as 1910, they have been a federally recognized tribe. The OIN is part of the original Oneida tribe that was party to the
1794 Treaty of Canadaigua. In unrelated cases involving other Indian tribes and whether the IRA applied to them, the BIA issued a ruling that the fact that a tribe conducted a vote related to reorganizing under the IRA, was sufficient to establish that an Indian Tribe was under federal jurisdiction in 1934. A 1980 BIA memorandum determined that the phrase "recognized tribe now under federal jurisdiction" includes tribes that existed in 1934 and had a continuing course of dealing with the United States or some other legal obligation. To this day, the United States honors its legal obligations to the OIN under the 1794 Treaty of Canandaigua. Any flawed claim that the OIN is not a federally recognized tribe was unequivocally debunked in the US Second Circuit Court of Appeals decision in 2016, where the Court affirmed, inter alia, that the OIN is an Indian Tribe within the meaning of the IRA. On December 23, 2013, the BIA issued an amendment to its 2008 record of decision, accepting 13,082 acres into federal trust. In that amendment, the BIA unequivocally determined that the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 is applicable to the OIN not only by virtue of the vote held, but also by the
Boylan litigation, the 1794 Treaty of Canadaigua, and the historical record. As noted below, New York State, and Oneida and Madison Counties have agreed to this decision's validity and discontinued any legal challenge, in perpetuity. In March 2008, County Executive Anthony Picente held a public meeting to discuss the possibility of negotiating a settlement before the March 25 deadline. Congressman Arcuri tried to stall the decision by seeking to block such a settlement through legislation. While criticized by both sides for killing any progress made between the two sides, Arcuri said he wanted to encourage negotiations. The OIN offered to negotiate and settle the issues involved, while the state and county officials promised continued litigation. On or about June 17, 2008, two groups filed separate lawsuits in federal court challenging the DOI's decision.; UCE's suit challenged the DOI's authority to take the land into trust under the
Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, alleging that this trust decision violates the United States Constitution. The state and county governments' arguments were similar to those of UCE. The opposing parties alleged that the DOI's decision violates the United States constitution and that the DOI's decision was arbitrary. Two days later, the Assistant Attorney General for the State of New York objected to this action. He requested an expedited conference and asked that the United States voluntarily refrain from any further efforts to transfer land into trust for the OIN. Judge Kahn dismissed UCE's complaint, including the failed theory that the IRA is unconstitutional, on the basis of longstanding and settled law on this issue. As detailed below, on May 16, 2013, New York Governor
Andrew Cuomo, Oneida County Executive
Anthony Picente, Madison County Board of Supervisors Chairman John Becker, and Oneida Indian Nation leader
Ray Halbritter announced a deal that settled all of their differences. Before the deal became effective, the majority of each government's legislative branches had to approve it. The key components of the agreement are as follows: • The OIN will pay 25% of its profits from its new slot machines to the state; • The State agrees to allow a maximum of to be placed into federal trust; • The OIN will have exclusive gaming rights within a 10-county region; • All pending litigation will be withdrawn; and • The OIN will charge its own sales tax on cigarettes and gas sales made to non-Indian purchasers, to be paid to the state. Of the 25% revenue that the state will receive, it will give half to the governments of Oneida and Madison counties. == Issues ==