Court case

Federal Power Commission v. Tuscarora Indian Nation

The Court allowed the Power Authority to take Tuscarora land bought in fee for a reservoir, with just compensation.

Citation
362 U.S. 99 (1960)
Court
U.S. Supreme Court
Year
1960
Nations
Tuscarora Nation (Haudenosaunee)
Treaty at issue
none for the fee lands at issue (purchased in fee)
Effect on land rights
eroded

What happened

The Tuscarora Indian Nation owned land in fee simple near the Niagara River at Lewiston, New York. The opinion traces how: the Tuscaroras, with help from Presidents Washington and Jefferson and Congress, sold their North Carolina lands through the Secretary of War for $15,000. That money bought additional land next to tracts the Nation had received earlier. In 1804 the Nation bought 4,329 acres from the Holland Land Company, with the assistance of Secretary of War Henry Dearborn, and the Nation has owned those lands since the conveyance of January 2, 1809.

In 1957 Congress, by Public Law 85-159, directed the Federal Power Commission to license the Power Authority of the State of New York to build a hydroelectric project. The project's storage reservoir would take part of those Tuscarora lands. The Nation argued that the land lay within a federal "reservation," that a treaty protected it, and that 25 U.S.C. section 177, which forbids transfers of Indian land except by treaty or convention, barred the taking.

The Supreme Court disagreed on each point. Because the Nation owned the land in fee simple and no interest in it was owned by the United States, it was not within a "reservation" under the Federal Power Act. By the Act's broad terms, the Commission's licensees may take "lands owned by Indians, as well as those of all other citizens," on payment of just compensation. The lands were not subject to any treaty with the United States, and section 177 does not apply to the United States itself or its licensees. Justice Black dissented, joined by the Chief Justice and Justice Douglas.

Summarized with AI assistance from 4 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. the lands in question are not subject to any treaty between the United States and the Tuscarora Indian NationFederal Power Commission v. Tuscarora Indian Nation, 362 U.S. 99 (1960) (U.S. Reports, Library of Congress)
  2. lands owned by Indians, as well as those of all other citizens, when needed for a licensed projectFederal Power Commission v. Tuscarora Indian Nation, 362 U.S. 99 (1960) (U.S. Reports, Library of Congress)
  3. the Tuscaroras were able, through the Secretary of War, to sell their vast North Carolina lands for $15,000Federal Power Commission v. Tuscarora Indian Nation, 362 U.S. 99 (1960) (U.S. Reports, Library of Congress)
  4. Decided March 7, 1960Federal Power Commission v. Tuscarora Indian Nation, 362 U.S. 99 (1960) (U.S. Reports, Library of Congress)

Research notes. The old text's 'bought with its own funds' is replaced by the opinion's account that the purchase money came from the sale of the Nation's North Carolina lands, held in trust by the Secretary of War. The 'leading example' and 'later cases' sentence was removed as unsourced. I read the syllabus and the statement of facts and holdings, not every section.

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 3

Nations named 2

Policy era 1

Decided a dispute over 1

Sources

  1. supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/362/99/legal text copy
The record’s fields
Holding
Tuscarora lands owned in fee simple are not a 'reservation' under the Federal Power Act, so a licensee may condemn them for a power project (Niagara) on paying compensation; 25 U.S.C. 177 did not bar the taking. Black, Warren and Douglas dissented.
Kind
Court case
Confidence
High

Correct this record