Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y. State v. Oneida County
Encyclopedia
Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y. State v. Oneida Cnty., 414 U.S. 661 (1974), is a landmark decision
concerning aboriginal title in the United States
. The suit was the "first of the modern-day [Native American land] claim cases to be filed in federal court." By allowing such claims to proceed in federal court, Oneida I "overturned one hundred forty-three years of American law."
The Supreme Court held that there is federal subject-matter jurisdiction
for possessory land claims brought by Indian tribes
based upon aboriginal title
, the Nonintercourse Act, and Indian treaties. The case re-invigorated Indian land claims in the eastern United States, especially the former Thirteen Colonies
, with the hope of a federal forum for claims which had been un-litigable in state courts for 200 years.
Justice White held that jurisdiction for such suits arose both from 28 U.S.C. § 1331—conferring jurisdiction for cases "aris[ing] under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States"—and 28 U.S.C. § 1362—conferring similar jurisdiction to cases brought by Indian tribes, regardless of the amount in controversy.
The case is often referred to as Oneida I because it is the first of three times the Oneida Indian Nation
reached the Supreme Court in litigating its land rights claims. It was followed by Oneida Cnty. v. Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y. State (1985) ["Oneida II"]—rejecting all of the affirmative defense
s raised by the counties in the same action, and City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y. (2005) ["Sherrill"], rejecting the tribe's attempt in a later lawsuit to re-assert tribal sovereignty over parcels of land re-acquired by the tribe in fee simple
.
of New York State and Oneida Indian Nation of Wisconsin filed suit against Oneida County, New York
and Madison County, New York
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York
. The Oneidas alleged that vast swathes of tribal lands had been conveyed to the state of New York in violation of the Nonintercourse Act and three Indian treaties: the Treaty of Fort Stanwix
(1784), the Treaty of Fort Harmar
(1789), and the Treaty of Canandaigua
(1794). Although the complaint named over 6000000 acres (24,281.2 km²) conveyed in such manner, the suit involved only the portion of that land held by the two counties. As damages, the tribes asked only for the fair rental value of the lands from the period January 1, 1968, through December 31, 1969.
The District Court held that the complaint asserted only state law claims, implicating federal law only indirectly, and thus granted the motion to dismiss under the well-pleaded complaint rule.
affirmed the dismissal. Chief Judge Henry Friendly
, for the Second Circuit, held that the assertion of jurisdiction "shatters on the rock of the ‘well-pleaded complaint’ rule." The Second Circuit placed weight upon Taylor v. Anderson, 234 U.S. 74 (1914), holding that there was no federal jurisdiction for an ejectment
action which alleged wrongful alienation of lands allotted to Choctaw
and Chickasaw
Indians.
The Supreme Court reversed. Justice White noted that, "[a]ccepting the premise of the Court of Appeals that the case was essentially a possessory action, we are of the view that the complaint asserted a current right to possession conferred by federal law, wholly independent of state law." The Court distinguished Taylor v. Anderson on the grounds that:
The majority emphasized the supremacy of federal Indian law to state law:
Because the District Court had disposed on the case on a motion to dismiss, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
s and awarded money damages. This time, the counties appealed to the Supreme Court, which again granted certiorari
. The impact of Oneida I was summed up, in the interpretation of Allan Van Gestal, the lawyer for Oneida County, in his argument in Oneida II:
Oneida Cnty. v. Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y. State, 470 U.S. 226 (1985), affirmed the rejection of the counties' affirmative defenses, leaving the damages award intact. The larger portion of the Oneida claim, to the 6 million acres (24,281.2 km²) tract, was rejected by the Second Circuit in 1988, on the grounds that the Confederation Congress Proclamation of 1783
had neither the authority nor the intent to limit the acquisition of Indian lands within the borders of U.S. state
s.
Landmark decision
Landmark court decisions establish new precedents that establish a significant new legal principle or concept, or otherwise substantially change the interpretation of existing law...
concerning aboriginal title in the United States
Aboriginal title in the United States
The United States was the first jurisdiction to acknowledge the common law doctrine of aboriginal title...
. The suit was the "first of the modern-day [Native American land] claim cases to be filed in federal court." By allowing such claims to proceed in federal court, Oneida I "overturned one hundred forty-three years of American law."
The Supreme Court held that there is federal subject-matter jurisdiction
Subject-matter jurisdiction
Subject-matter jurisdiction is the authority of a court to hear cases of a particular type or cases relating to a specific subject matter. For instance, bankruptcy court only has the authority to hear bankruptcy cases....
for possessory land claims brought by Indian tribes
Indian tribes
The India's tribal belts refer to contiguous areas of indigenous settlement of tribal people of India.-Northwest India:The Tribal Belt of Northwest India includes the states of Rajasthan, Gujarat, Maharashtra, and Karnataka. The tribal people of this region have origins which precede the Vedic...
based upon aboriginal title
Aboriginal title
Aboriginal title is a common law doctrine that the land rights of indigenous peoples to customary tenure persist after the assumption of sovereignty under settler colonialism...
, the Nonintercourse Act, and Indian treaties. The case re-invigorated Indian land claims in the eastern United States, especially the former Thirteen Colonies
Thirteen Colonies
The Thirteen Colonies were English and later British colonies established on the Atlantic coast of North America between 1607 and 1733. They declared their independence in the American Revolution and formed the United States of America...
, with the hope of a federal forum for claims which had been un-litigable in state courts for 200 years.
Justice White held that jurisdiction for such suits arose both from 28 U.S.C. § 1331—conferring jurisdiction for cases "aris[ing] under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States"—and 28 U.S.C. § 1362—conferring similar jurisdiction to cases brought by Indian tribes, regardless of the amount in controversy.
The case is often referred to as Oneida I because it is the first of three times the Oneida Indian Nation
Oneida Indian Nation
The Oneida Indian Nation is the Oneida tribe that resides in New York and currently owns a number of businesses and tribal land in Verona, NY, Oneida, NY, and Canastota, NY.- Businesses :...
reached the Supreme Court in litigating its land rights claims. It was followed by Oneida Cnty. v. Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y. State (1985) ["Oneida II"]—rejecting all of the affirmative defense
Affirmative defense
A defendant offers an affirmative defense when responding to a plaintiff's claim in common law jurisdictions, or, more familiarly, in criminal law. Essentially, the defendant affirms that the condition is occurring or has occurred but offers a defense that bars, or prevents, the plaintiff's claim. ...
s raised by the counties in the same action, and City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y. (2005) ["Sherrill"], rejecting the tribe's attempt in a later lawsuit to re-assert tribal sovereignty over parcels of land re-acquired by the tribe in fee simple
Fee simple
In English law, a fee simple is an estate in land, a form of freehold ownership. It is the most common way that real estate is owned in common law countries, and is ordinarily the most complete ownership interest that can be had in real property short of allodial title, which is often reserved...
.
District Court
In 1970, the Oneida Indian NationOneida Indian Nation
The Oneida Indian Nation is the Oneida tribe that resides in New York and currently owns a number of businesses and tribal land in Verona, NY, Oneida, NY, and Canastota, NY.- Businesses :...
of New York State and Oneida Indian Nation of Wisconsin filed suit against Oneida County, New York
Oneida County, New York
Oneida County is a county located in the U.S. state of New York. As of the 2010 census, the population was 234,878. The county seat is Utica. The name is in honor of the Oneida, an Iroquoian tribe that formerly occupied the region....
and Madison County, New York
Madison County, New York
Madison County is a county located in the U.S. state of New York. As of the 2010 census, the population was 73,442. It is named after James Madison, fourth President of the United States of America...
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York
United States District Court for the Northern District of New York
The United States District Court for the Northern District of New York serves one of the 94 judicial districts in the United States and one of four in the state of New York. The U.S. Attorney for the district is Richard S. Hartunian...
. The Oneidas alleged that vast swathes of tribal lands had been conveyed to the state of New York in violation of the Nonintercourse Act and three Indian treaties: the Treaty of Fort Stanwix
Treaty of Fort Stanwix
The Treaty of Fort Stanwix was an important treaty between North American Indians and the British Empire. It was signed in 1768 at Fort Stanwix, located in present-day Rome, New York...
(1784), the Treaty of Fort Harmar
Treaty of Fort Harmar
The Treaty of Fort Harmar was an agreement between the United States government and numerous Native American tribes with claims to the Ohio Country. it was signed at Fort Harmar, near present-day Marietta, Ohio, on January 9, 1789. Representatives of the Six Nations and other groups including the...
(1789), and the Treaty of Canandaigua
Treaty of Canandaigua
The Treaty of Canandaigua is a treaty signed after the American Revolutionary War between the Grand Council of the Six Nations and President George Washington representing the United States of America....
(1794). Although the complaint named over 6000000 acres (24,281.2 km²) conveyed in such manner, the suit involved only the portion of that land held by the two counties. As damages, the tribes asked only for the fair rental value of the lands from the period January 1, 1968, through December 31, 1969.
The District Court held that the complaint asserted only state law claims, implicating federal law only indirectly, and thus granted the motion to dismiss under the well-pleaded complaint rule.
Circuit Court
A divided panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second CircuitUnited States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is one of the thirteen United States Courts of Appeals...
affirmed the dismissal. Chief Judge Henry Friendly
Henry Friendly
Henry Jacob Friendly was a prominent judge in the United States, who sat on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit from 1959 through 1974 and in senior status until his death by suicide in 1986.- Before the bench :Judge Friendly graduated from...
, for the Second Circuit, held that the assertion of jurisdiction "shatters on the rock of the ‘well-pleaded complaint’ rule." The Second Circuit placed weight upon Taylor v. Anderson, 234 U.S. 74 (1914), holding that there was no federal jurisdiction for an ejectment
Ejectment
Ejectment is the common law term for civil action to recover the possession of and title to land. It replaced the old real actions as well as the various possessory assizes...
action which alleged wrongful alienation of lands allotted to Choctaw
Choctaw
The Choctaw are a Native American people originally from the Southeastern United States...
and Chickasaw
Chickasaw
The Chickasaw are Native American people originally from the region that would become the Southeastern United States...
Indians.
Majority
Here, the right to possession itself is claimed to arise under federal law in the first instance. Allegedly, aboriginal title of an Indian tribe guaranteed by treaty and protected by statute has never been extinguished. In Taylor, the plaintiffs were individual Indians, not an Indian tribe; and the suit concerned lands allocated to individual Indians, not tribal rights to lands . . . .
In the present case, however, the assertion of a federal controversy does not rest solely on the claim of a right to possession derived from a federal grant of title whose scope will be governed by state law. Rather, it rests on the not insubstantial claim that federal law now protects, and has continuously protected from the time of the formation of the United States, possessory rights to tribal lands, wholly apart from the application of state law principles which normally and separately protect a valid right of possession.
The majority emphasized the supremacy of federal Indian law to state law:
There has been recurring tension between federal and state law; state authorities have not easily accepted the notion that federal law and federal courts must be deemed the controlling considerations in dealing with the Indians. Fellows v. BlacksmithFellows v. BlacksmithFellows v. Blacksmith, 60 U.S. 366 , was the first litigation of aboriginal title in the United States in the U.S. Supreme Court by an indigenous plaintiff since Cherokee Nation v. Georgia...
, The New York Indians, United States v. Forness, and the Tuscarora litigationFederal Power Commission v. Tuscarora Indian NationFederal Power Commission v. Tuscarora Indian Nation, , was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court which determined that the Federal Power Commission was authorized to take lands owned by the Tuscarora Indian tribe by eminent domain under the Federal Power Act for a hydroelectric power...
are sufficient evidence that the reach and exclusivity of federal law with respect to reservation lands and reservation Indians did not go unchallenged; and it may be that they are to some extent challenged here. But this only underlines the legal reality that the controversy alleged in the complaint may well depend on what the reach and impact of the federal law will prove to be in this case.
Because the District Court had disposed on the case on a motion to dismiss, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Concurrence
Justices Rehnquist and Powell concurred separately, emphasizing their understanding that the majority's holding would not apply to ejectment actions brought by non-Indians. The concurrence concluded: "The opinion for the Court today should give no comfort to persons with garden-variety ejectment claims who, for one reason or another, are covetously eyeing the door to the federal courthouse."Further history
On remand, the District Court and Second Circuit rejected the counties' affirmative defenseAffirmative defense
A defendant offers an affirmative defense when responding to a plaintiff's claim in common law jurisdictions, or, more familiarly, in criminal law. Essentially, the defendant affirms that the condition is occurring or has occurred but offers a defense that bars, or prevents, the plaintiff's claim. ...
s and awarded money damages. This time, the counties appealed to the Supreme Court, which again granted certiorari
Certiorari
Certiorari is a type of writ seeking judicial review, recognized in U.S., Roman, English, Philippine, and other law. Certiorari is the present passive infinitive of the Latin certiorare...
. The impact of Oneida I was summed up, in the interpretation of Allan Van Gestal, the lawyer for Oneida County, in his argument in Oneida II:
This case is a test case, having been so designated by the plaintiffs, having been so tried by the courts below. . . . The 1974 opinion in this case has already spawned a vast number of Indian land claims. A number of cases are pending throughout the eastern states and southern states, citing the 1974 jurisdictional opinion as if it were an opinion on the merits of the issues. That case, indeed, has already been cited 162 times since 1974.
Oneida Cnty. v. Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y. State, 470 U.S. 226 (1985), affirmed the rejection of the counties' affirmative defenses, leaving the damages award intact. The larger portion of the Oneida claim, to the 6 million acres (24,281.2 km²) tract, was rejected by the Second Circuit in 1988, on the grounds that the Confederation Congress Proclamation of 1783
Confederation Congress Proclamation of 1783
Confederation Congress Proclamation of 1783 was a proclamation by the Congress of the Confederation dated September 22, 1783 prohibiting the extinguishment of aboriginal title in the United States without the consent of the federal government...
had neither the authority nor the intent to limit the acquisition of Indian lands within the borders of U.S. state
U.S. state
A U.S. state is any one of the 50 federated states of the United States of America that share sovereignty with the federal government. Because of this shared sovereignty, an American is a citizen both of the federal entity and of his or her state of domicile. Four states use the official title of...
s.
External links
- Oral arguments and text of the opinion at Oyez Project