Seneca Nation of Indians v. Christy
Encyclopedia
Seneca Nation of Indians v. Christy, 162 U.S. 283 (1896), was the first litigation of aboriginal title in the United States
by a tribal plaintiff in the Supreme Court of the United States
since Cherokee Nation v. Georgia
(1831), and the first such litigation by an indigenous plaintiff since Fellows v. Blacksmith
(1857) and its companion case of New York ex rel. Cutler v. Dibble
(1858).
The New York courts held that the Phelps and Gorham Purchase
did not violate the Nonintercourse Act, and that (even if it did) the Seneca Nation of New York
was barred by the state statute of limitation from challenging the conveyance. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the merits of the holdings below because of the adequate and independent state ground
s doctrine.
According to O'Toole and Tureen
, "Christy is an important case in that it resurrected the idea that states had special powers to deal with Indian tribes within their borders."
Although the case has not been formally overruled, two Supreme Court decisions from the 1970s and 1980s have undone its effect by holding that there is federal subject-matter jurisdiction
for a federal common law
cause of action
for ejectment
based on aboriginal title
. Moreover, the New York courts' interpretation of the Nonintercourse Act is no longer good law, with modern federal courts holding that only Congress can ratify a conveyance of aboriginal title, and only with a clear statement
, rather than implicitly.
, a tract of land once disputed between New York and Massachusetts. By a December 16, 1786 interstate compact
, the states agree that Massachusetts would retain the proprietary rights, and the right of preemption, but New York would retain the governmental rights. After the adoption of the United States Constitution
, the federal government ratified the compact.
Three private individuals—Robert Troup
, Thomas L. Ogden, and Benjamin W. Rogers—obtained the proprietary and preemptive rights from Massachusetts and executed a treaty of conveyance with the Senecas on August 31, 1826, purchasing 87,000 acres for $48,216. Massachusetts approved the conveyance, but the United States federal government did not ratify the treaty. In 1827, the money was deposited in Ontario Bank
in Canandaigua, New York, and in 1855 it was paid to the United States treasury
, which began remitting the interest to the Seneca Nation.
on January 5, 1881, requesting possession of certain lands related to the Phelps and Gorham Purchase. This petition was ignored.
The Seneca's lawyer was James Clark Strong
, a "prominent lawyer and civic-minded resident of Buffalo." Strong was a former lieutenant colonel in the Union army (brevetted
to general after the war), with a permanent limp from his wounds in the American Civil War
. At the law practice of his brother, John C. Strong, he had also represented the Cayuga in a claim against New York state.
of Erie County, New York
on October 13, 1885. The Seneca requested the ejectment
of Harrison B. Christy from 100 acres of land in the town of Brant, New York
(purchased from the Ogden Land Company), known as the "mile strip." These lands were formerly part of the Cattaraugus Indian Reservation, as established by the Treaty of Big Tree
(1797).
The Seneca contended that the purchase was invalid because the treaty was not approved by the Senate, and therefore violated the Nonintercourse Act
. Christy's "answer consisted of a general denial, the plea of the statute of limitations of 20 years, and that the plaintiff had not the legal right, title, capacity, or authority to maintain the action."
The General Term of the Fifth Department of the New York Supreme Court
heard the intermediate appeal. Bradley J., writing for himself and Dwight JJ., affirmed. The court considered whether the Indians had properly surrendered the land and whether the consideration had actually been paid. As to the first question, the court noted that, while "in view of the known habits of Indians they may not be supposed to represent their occupation or possession by improvements or inclosures of all or great portions of their lands":
The court cited Johnson v. M'Intosh
(1823) for the proposition that: "[t]he title of the Indians was possessory, and embraced the right of occupancy only. And when abandoned by them the possession attached itself to the fee of the lands." As to the second question, the court noted:
Finally, the court noted:
As a result, the intermediate appellate court did not reach the question of whether the statute of limitation applies.
, writing for a unanimous New York Court of Appeals
, affirmed.
Validity of the transaction
After reviewing the facts, Andrews began by arguing that there were many ways to extinguish aboriginal title
. He claimed: "It is material to observe that there was no uniform procedure on the part of the purchasers from Massachusetts in acquiring the Indian title," and gave examples of conveyances he believed to have been implicitly ratified by the federal government. As to the Seneca's argument that only the federal government could extinguish aboriginal title after the ratification of the Constitution, Andrews noted that:
Instead, Andrews expressed the view that the U.S. state
s, not the federal government, inherited from Great Britain the sole power to extinguish aboriginal title:
Andrews rejected the argument that the federal government had acquired Indian lands by treaty
out of a legal requirement to do so:
Again, Andrews relied upon the argument of federal acquiescence:
Effect of the Nonintercourse Act
As to the Nonintercourse Act
, Andrews questioned both whether it applied to purchases by a state and whether it applied to purchases within a state. However, Andrews proceed to assume that the Act applied and held that it had not been violated. Andrews proceeded to argue that the treaty requirement of the Act was satisfied by state treaties:
Andrews also placed reliance on the fact that later versions of the Act excluded the clause "or to any state, whether having the right of pre-emption or not" and instead simply prohibited acquisitions by persons.
Applicability of the statute of limitations
Independently, Andrews indicated he would have dismissed the action under the statute of limitations
:
Andrews emphasized this latter ground because of his desire to prevent any similar lands claims by Indian tribes:
Chief Justice Melville Fuller
, for a unanimous Court, dismissed the writ of error, relying on the adequate and independent state ground
s for the New York Court of Appeals' decision. After reviewing the facts and the judgment below, he wrote that:
Seneca Nation has never been overruled. However, the effect of the decision was undone by Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y. State v. Oneida County
(1974) ["Oneida I"] and Oneida County v. Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y. State
(1985) ["Oneida II"], which held that there is a federal common law
cause of action for ejectment based upon aboriginal title for which there is federal subject-matter jurisdiction
. Therefore, Indian tribes no longer have to rely on state statutes for a cause of action. In the words of Prof. Hauptman, Oneida I "overturned one hundred forty-three years of American law."
Aboriginal title in the United States
The United States was the first jurisdiction to acknowledge the common law doctrine of aboriginal title...
by a tribal plaintiff in the Supreme Court of the United States
Supreme Court of the United States
The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the United States. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all state and federal courts, and original jurisdiction over a small range of cases...
since Cherokee Nation v. Georgia
Cherokee Nation v. Georgia
Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, , was a United States Supreme Court case. The Cherokee Nation sought a federal injunction against laws passed by the state of Georgia depriving them of rights within its boundaries, but the Supreme Court did not hear the case on its merits...
(1831), and the first such litigation by an indigenous plaintiff since Fellows v. Blacksmith
Fellows v. Blacksmith
Fellows 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...
(1857) and its companion case of New York ex rel. Cutler v. Dibble
New York ex rel. Cutler v. Dibble
New York ex rel. Cutler v. Dibble, 62 U.S. 366 , was a companion case to the more well-known Fellows v. Blacksmith . At the time Fellows was decided, this case had reached the U.S...
(1858).
The New York courts held that the Phelps and Gorham Purchase
Phelps and Gorham Purchase
The Phelps and Gorham Purchase was the purchase in 1788 of the pre-emptive right to some 6,000,000 acres of land in western New York State for $1,000,000 . This was all land in western New York west of Seneca Lake between Lake Ontario and the Pennsylvania border...
did not violate the Nonintercourse Act, and that (even if it did) the Seneca Nation of New York
Seneca Nation of New York
The Seneca Nation of New York, also known as the Seneca Nation of Indians is a federally recognized tribe of Seneca people in New York...
was barred by the state statute of limitation from challenging the conveyance. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the merits of the holdings below because of the adequate and independent state ground
Adequate and independent state ground
The adequate and independent state ground doctrine is a doctrine of United States law governing the power of the U.S. Supreme Court to review judgments entered by state courts.- Introduction :...
s doctrine.
According to O'Toole and Tureen
Tom Tureen
Thomas Norton Tureen is a prominent American lawyer, known for his work with Native American tribes and the Native American Rights Fund pioneering the use of the Nonintercourse Act to challenge post-1790 acquisitions of Native American lands by state governments without federal approval.Tureen...
, "Christy is an important case in that it resurrected the idea that states had special powers to deal with Indian tribes within their borders."
Although the case has not been formally overruled, two Supreme Court decisions from the 1970s and 1980s have undone its effect by holding 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 a federal common law
Federal common law
Federal common law is a term of United States law used to describe common law that is developed by the federal courts, instead of by the courts of the various states...
cause of action
Cause of action
In the law, a cause of action is a set of facts sufficient to justify a right to sue to obtain money, property, or the enforcement of a right against another party. The term also refers to the legal theory upon which a plaintiff brings suit...
for 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...
based on 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...
. Moreover, the New York courts' interpretation of the Nonintercourse Act is no longer good law, with modern federal courts holding that only Congress can ratify a conveyance of aboriginal title, and only with a clear statement
Clear statement rule
In American law, the clear statement rule is a guideline for statutory construction, instructing courts to not interpret a statute in a way that will have particular consequences unless the statute makes unmistakably clear its intent to achieve that result...
, rather than implicitly.
Background
Conveyance
The land in question comprised part of the Phelps and Gorham PurchasePhelps and Gorham Purchase
The Phelps and Gorham Purchase was the purchase in 1788 of the pre-emptive right to some 6,000,000 acres of land in western New York State for $1,000,000 . This was all land in western New York west of Seneca Lake between Lake Ontario and the Pennsylvania border...
, a tract of land once disputed between New York and Massachusetts. By a December 16, 1786 interstate compact
Interstate compact
An interstate compact is an agreement between two or more states of the United States of America. Article I, Section 10 of the United States Constitution provides that "no state shall enter into an agreement or compact with another state" without the consent of Congress...
, the states agree that Massachusetts would retain the proprietary rights, and the right of preemption, but New York would retain the governmental rights. After the adoption of the United States Constitution
United States Constitution
The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the United States of America. It is the framework for the organization of the United States government and for the relationship of the federal government with the states, citizens, and all people within the United States.The first three...
, the federal government ratified the compact.
Three private individuals—Robert Troup
Robert Troup
Robert Troup was an American soldier, lawyer and jurist.Born in Elizabethtown, New Jersey, Troup attended King's College...
, Thomas L. Ogden, and Benjamin W. Rogers—obtained the proprietary and preemptive rights from Massachusetts and executed a treaty of conveyance with the Senecas on August 31, 1826, purchasing 87,000 acres for $48,216. Massachusetts approved the conveyance, but the United States federal government did not ratify the treaty. In 1827, the money was deposited in Ontario Bank
Ontario Bank
Ontario Bank was an early bank operating in Toronto, Ontario in 1860. It was last listed as a member of the Canadian Bankers Association in 1901. The bank and its 30 branches across the province were absorbed into the Bank of Montreal in the fall of 1906, after its general manager Charles McGill...
in Canandaigua, New York, and in 1855 it was paid to the United States treasury
United States Department of the Treasury
The Department of the Treasury is an executive department and the treasury of the United States federal government. It was established by an Act of Congress in 1789 to manage government revenue...
, which began remitting the interest to the Seneca Nation.
Dispute
The Seneca Nation could not have brought the lawsuit until 1845, when the New York legislature extended to them the right to bring suits in courts of law and equity. The Seneca filed a petition with the Bureau of Indian AffairsBureau of Indian Affairs
The Bureau of Indian Affairs is an agency of the federal government of the United States within the US Department of the Interior. It is responsible for the administration and management of of land held in trust by the United States for Native Americans in the United States, Native American...
on January 5, 1881, requesting possession of certain lands related to the Phelps and Gorham Purchase. This petition was ignored.
The Seneca's lawyer was James Clark Strong
James Clark Strong
James Clark Strong was a breveted American Civil War general and prominent New York attorney in the post-war period. An advocate for Native Americans, he litigated That Portion of the Cayuga Indians Residing in Canada v. State and Seneca Nation of Indians v. Christy James Clark Strong (May 26,...
, a "prominent lawyer and civic-minded resident of Buffalo." Strong was a former lieutenant colonel in the Union army (brevetted
Brevet (military)
In many of the world's military establishments, brevet referred to a warrant authorizing a commissioned officer to hold a higher rank temporarily, but usually without receiving the pay of that higher rank except when actually serving in that role. An officer so promoted may be referred to as being...
to general after the war), with a permanent limp from his wounds in the American Civil War
American Civil War
The American Civil War was a civil war fought in the United States of America. In response to the election of Abraham Lincoln as President of the United States, 11 southern slave states declared their secession from the United States and formed the Confederate States of America ; the other 25...
. At the law practice of his brother, John C. Strong, he had also represented the Cayuga in a claim against New York state.
New York trial court
The Seneca brought suit in the Circuit CourtNew York Supreme Court
The Supreme Court of the State of New York is the trial-level court of general jurisdiction in thestate court system of New York, United States. There is a supreme court in each of New York State's 62 counties, although some smaller counties share judges with neighboring counties...
of Erie County, New York
Erie County, New York
Erie County is a county located in the U.S. state of New York. As of the 2010 census, the population was 919,040. The county seat is Buffalo. The county's name comes from Lake Erie, which in turn comes from the Erie tribe of American Indians who lived south and east of the lake before 1654.Erie...
on October 13, 1885. The Seneca requested the 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...
of Harrison B. Christy from 100 acres of land in the town of Brant, New York
Brant, New York
Brant is a town in Erie County, New York, United States. As of the 2000 U.S. census, the town had a population of 1,906. The town was named after the Mohawk leader Joseph Brant....
(purchased from the Ogden Land Company), known as the "mile strip." These lands were formerly part of the Cattaraugus Indian Reservation, as established by the Treaty of Big Tree
Treaty of Big Tree
Treaty of Big Tree was a formal treaty, held from August 20, 1797 until September 16, 1797, between the Seneca nation and the United States of America. The delegates for both parties met at the residence of William Wadsworth, an early pioneer of the area and Captain of the local militia, in what is...
(1797).
The Seneca contended that the purchase was invalid because the treaty was not approved by the Senate, and therefore violated the Nonintercourse Act
Indian Intercourse Act
The Nonintercourse Act is the collective name given to six statutes passed by the United States Congress in 1790, 1793, 1796, 1799, 1802, and 1834. The Act regulates commerce between Native Americans and non-Indians...
. Christy's "answer consisted of a general denial, the plea of the statute of limitations of 20 years, and that the plaintiff had not the legal right, title, capacity, or authority to maintain the action."
New York intermediate appellate court
New York Supreme Court
The Supreme Court of the State of New York is the trial-level court of general jurisdiction in thestate court system of New York, United States. There is a supreme court in each of New York State's 62 counties, although some smaller counties share judges with neighboring counties...
heard the intermediate appeal. Bradley J., writing for himself and Dwight JJ., affirmed. The court considered whether the Indians had properly surrendered the land and whether the consideration had actually been paid. As to the first question, the court noted that, while "in view of the known habits of Indians they may not be supposed to represent their occupation or possession by improvements or inclosures of all or great portions of their lands":
[I]n this case the abandonment and surrender were not only practically made, but have been characterized by such circumstances and by such recognition, not only by the Indians, but by the government, in such manner as to determine the situation, and in legal effect to sever the prior relation of the Indians to the lands from them. The quantity of land covered by the treaty of conveyance was large.
The court cited Johnson v. M'Intosh
Johnson v. M'Intosh
Johnson v. M'Intosh, 21 U.S. 543 , is a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that held that private citizens could not purchase lands from Native Americans...
(1823) for the proposition that: "[t]he title of the Indians was possessory, and embraced the right of occupancy only. And when abandoned by them the possession attached itself to the fee of the lands." As to the second question, the court noted:
The suggestion that the entire amount of the purchase money was not paid, and that such fact is in the way of supporting the claim to the Indian title, is not sustained. We are not called upon to consider the effect of default in payment of any portion of the purchase money. The treaty recites the payment of it, and as no such question seems ever before to have been raised, or full payment questioned, either by government or the Indians, it must at this late day be assumed, until the contrary is quite clearly made to appear, that the contract in that respect was performed.
Finally, the court noted:
The plaintiff not being a corporation, and having no such corporate name, could not at common law maintain an action. This right, however, was more than 40 years ago conferred by statute, which, among other things, provides that the Seneca Nation of Indians may maintain any action of ejectment to recover the possession of any part of the Allegany and Cattaraugus reservations unlawfully withheld from them.
As a result, the intermediate appellate court did not reach the question of whether the statute of limitation applies.
New York Court of Appeals
Chief Justice Charles AndrewsCharles Andrews (judge)
Charles Andrews was an American Lawyer and politician. He was Chief Judge of the New York Court of Appeals from 1881 to 1882 and from 1892 to 1897....
, writing for a unanimous New York Court of Appeals
New York Court of Appeals
The New York Court of Appeals is the highest court in the U.S. state of New York. The Court of Appeals consists of seven judges: the Chief Judge and six associate judges who are appointed by the Governor to 14-year terms...
, affirmed.
Validity of the transaction
After reviewing the facts, Andrews began by arguing that there were many ways to extinguish 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...
. He claimed: "It is material to observe that there was no uniform procedure on the part of the purchasers from Massachusetts in acquiring the Indian title," and gave examples of conveyances he believed to have been implicitly ratified by the federal government. As to the Seneca's argument that only the federal government could extinguish aboriginal title after the ratification of the Constitution, Andrews noted that:
These claims challenge the title not only of every purchaser and holder of lands within the boundaries of the grant of August 31, 1826, but also the title to many millions of acres of lands in this state, held under Indian treaties made by the state of New York with the Indian tribes within its borders, or under grants made by Indians to individuals under the authority of the state, where no treaty had been made between the United States and the Indian occupants.
Instead, Andrews expressed the view that the 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, not the federal government, inherited from Great Britain the sole power to extinguish aboriginal title:
On the Declaration of Independence the colonies became sovereign states. They were so acknowledged by the treaty of peace of 1783, and Great Britain by that treaty ‘relinquished all claims to the government, property, and territorial rights' within the several colonies. It is the received opinion that the colonies succeeded to the title of the crown to all the ungranted lands within their respective boundaries, with the exclusive right to extinguish by purchase the Indian title, and to regulate dealings with the Indian tribes. ‘There was no territory in the United States,’ said JOHNSON, J., in Harcourt v. Gaillard, 12 Wheat. 523, ‘that was claimed in any other right than that of one of the confederated states; therefore there could be no acquisition of territory made by the United States distinct from or independent of some one of the United States.’
Andrews rejected the argument that the federal government had acquired Indian lands by treaty
Treaty
A treaty is an express agreement under international law entered into by actors in international law, namely sovereign states and international organizations. A treaty may also be known as an agreement, protocol, covenant, convention or exchange of letters, among other terms...
out of a legal requirement to do so:
But the dealing by the general government with the Indian tribes through treaties was resorted to as a convenient mode of regulating Indian affairs, and not because, as with other nations, it was the only mode, independently of the arbitrament of war, of dealing with them.
Again, Andrews relied upon the argument of federal acquiescence:
The practical construction given by the state of New York to the federal constitution, as shown by the numerous treaties made by it with the Indian tribes, and the recognition by the federal authority of their validity, is very strong evidence that the clause in the federal constitution prohibiting the states from entering into treaties does not preclude a state, having the preemption right to Indian lands, from dealing with the Indian tribes directly, for the extinguishment of the Indian title.
Effect of the Nonintercourse Act
As to the Nonintercourse Act
Indian Intercourse Act
The Nonintercourse Act is the collective name given to six statutes passed by the United States Congress in 1790, 1793, 1796, 1799, 1802, and 1834. The Act regulates commerce between Native Americans and non-Indians...
, Andrews questioned both whether it applied to purchases by a state and whether it applied to purchases within a state. However, Andrews proceed to assume that the Act applied and held that it had not been violated. Andrews proceeded to argue that the treaty requirement of the Act was satisfied by state treaties:
The purchase must be made at a treaty, as in other cases. This insures publicity, and affords a protection against fraud. But the proviso does not require that the treaty should be one between the United States and the tribe from whom the purchase is made, as in the cases coming under the first clause of the section. It is sufficient if the purchase is made at a treaty held ‘under the authority of the United States,’ and in the ‘presence and with the approbation of the commissioner or commissioners of the United States,’ etc.
Andrews also placed reliance on the fact that later versions of the Act excluded the clause "or to any state, whether having the right of pre-emption or not" and instead simply prohibited acquisitions by persons.
Applicability of the statute of limitations
Independently, Andrews indicated he would have dismissed the action under the statute of limitations
Statute of limitations
A statute of limitations is an enactment in a common law legal system that sets the maximum time after an event that legal proceedings based on that event may be initiated...
:
We are also of opinion that as the right of the plaintiff to sue was given by, and is dependent upon, the statute, the statute of limitations is a bar to the action. By the act of 1845, the actions thereby authorized are to be brought and maintained ‘in the same time’ as if brought by citizens of the state. The question is not whether an Indian title can be barred by adverse possession, or by state statutes of limitation. The point is that the plaintiff cannot invoke the special remedy given by the statute, without being bound by the conditions upon which it is given.
Andrews emphasized this latter ground because of his desire to prevent any similar lands claims by Indian tribes:
In view of the numberous Indian titles in this state originating in treaties by the state, or in purchases made with its sanction by individuals, we prefer to place our judgment on the broader ground, which will remove any cloud upon the validity of those titles.
Opinion
Melville Fuller
Melville Weston Fuller was the eighth Chief Justice of the United States between 1888 and 1910.-Early life and education:...
, for a unanimous Court, dismissed the writ of error, relying on the adequate and independent state ground
Adequate and independent state ground
The adequate and independent state ground doctrine is a doctrine of United States law governing the power of the U.S. Supreme Court to review judgments entered by state courts.- Introduction :...
s for the New York Court of Appeals' decision. After reviewing the facts and the judgment below, he wrote that:
The proper construction of this enabling act, and the time within which an action might be brought and maintained thereunder, it was the province of the state courts to determine.
The Seneca Nation availed itself of the act in bringing this action, which was subject to the provision, as held by the court of appeals, that it could only be brought and maintained ‘in the same manner and within the same time as if brought by citizens of this state in relation to their private individual property and rights.’ Under the circumstances, the fact that the plaintiff was an Indian tribe cannot make federal questions of the correct construction of the act and the bar of the statute of limitations.
As it appears that the decision of the court of appeals was rested, in addition to other grounds, upon a distinct and independent ground, not involving any federal question, and sufficient in itself to maintain the judgment, the writ of error falls within the wellsettled rule on that subject, and cannot be maintained.
Legacy
A contemporary New York Times article claimed that "[t]he decision is one of local, state, and national importance alike . . . ." Prof. Hauptman sums up the case thus:The Treaties of 1823 and 1826, although fraudulent at their roots, were allowed to stand. The legal obstacles to Indian land suits at the time made it almost impossible to obtain redress until monetary compensation was awarded the Senecas under the Indian Claims Commission in the late 1960s and early 1970s.
Seneca Nation has never been overruled. However, the effect of the decision was undone by Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y. State v. Oneida County
Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y. State v. Oneida County
Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y. State v. Oneida Cnty., 414 U.S. 661 , is a landmark decision concerning aboriginal title in the United States...
(1974) ["Oneida I"] and Oneida County v. Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y. State
Oneida County v. Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y. State
Oneida Cnty. v. Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y. State, 470 U.S. 226 , is a landmark decision concerning aboriginal title in the United States...
(1985) ["Oneida II"], which held that there is a federal common law
Federal common law
Federal common law is a term of United States law used to describe common law that is developed by the federal courts, instead of by the courts of the various states...
cause of action for ejectment based upon aboriginal title for which 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....
. Therefore, Indian tribes no longer have to rely on state statutes for a cause of action. In the words of Prof. Hauptman, Oneida I "overturned one hundred forty-three years of American law."