Court case

City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York

The Oneida Nation could not revive tribal sovereignty over old reservation land it bought back, so the city could tax it.

Citation
544 U.S. 197 (2005)
Court
U.S. Supreme Court
Year
2005
Nations
Oneida Indian Nation of New York (Haudenosaunee)
Treaty at issue
Treaty of Fort Schuyler (1788); Treaty of Canandaigua (1794)
Effect on land rights
eroded

What happened

At the birth of the United States, the Oneida Nation's homeland covered some six million acres of what is now central New York. In 1788 the Oneidas ceded all their lands to the State but kept a reservation of about 300,000 acres. In the 1794 Treaty of Canandaigua the United States "acknowledge[d]" that reservation. New York kept buying Oneida land anyway, and by 1920 the Oneidas retained only 32 acres in the State.

In 1997 and 1998 the Oneida Indian Nation of New York bought parcels in the city of Sherrill, within the old reservation, and claimed they were free of local property tax. The Nation argued that buying the land back revived its ancient sovereignty over each parcel. The lower courts held the parcels were not taxable.

The Supreme Court reversed. It looked at the area's long non-Indian character, 200 years of regulation by the State and its counties and towns, and the Oneidas' long delay in seeking relief against anyone but the United States. It held that federal Indian law and equity "preclude the Tribe from unilaterally reviving its ancient sovereignty." The opinion said the Oneidas "long ago relinquished governmental reins" and cannot regain them through open-market purchases.

The Court also pointed to another route: 25 U.S.C. section 465, under which the Secretary of the Interior may acquire land in trust for Indians, and land taken into trust is exempt from state and local taxation.

Summarized with AI assistance from 3 sources and checked against their words; not yet reviewed by historians or by the nations. Report an error

What the sources say, and how this was checked

Well supported by the sources below.

  1. standards of federal Indian law and federal equity practice preclude the Tribe from unilaterally reviving its ancient sovereigntyCity of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York, 544 U.S. 197 (2005) (U.S. Reports, Library of Congress)
  2. By 1920, the New York Oneidas retained only 32 acres in the State.City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York, 544 U.S. 197 (2005) (U.S. Reports, Library of Congress)
  3. the Oneidas ceded all their lands to the State, but retained a reservation of about 300,000 acres for their own useCity of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York, 544 U.S. 197 (2005) (U.S. Reports, Library of Congress)

Research notes. The Court's own words 'long ago relinquished governmental reins' are paraphrased/quoted from the syllabus and opinion; the syllabus text has line-break hyphenation. The Treaty of Fort Schuyler (1788) in our data is the treaty the opinion describes as between the State and the Oneida Nation. The second Oneida case, County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation (1985), is not summarized here.

Treaty or agreementTreaty under documented pressureShapes from the 1899 federal record: approximate, not legal boundaries.

Who is doing the work

Working with these nations

Native legal and land defense, nationally

Gifts go straight to each organization; this atlas takes nothing. Listing is not endorsement: how organizations are listed.

Connections

Links marked “suggested” were matched automatically by name or date and have not yet been reviewed by a person.

Doctrine applied 4

Concerns the instrument 2

Nations named 2

Policy era 1

Limited 1

Decided a dispute over 1

Sources

  1. supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/544/197/legal text copy
The record’s fields
Holding
The Oneida could not revive tribal sovereignty over parcels repurchased on the open market after about two centuries of state and local control; laches, acquiescence and impossibility bar that relief. The route is trust acquisition (25 U.S.C. 5108, then 465).
Kind
Court case
Confidence
High

Correct this record