Violation
Tuscarora and the Niagara Power Project (1960)
Not yet reviewed by this nation. What follows comes from public records and research. It does not speak for the nation.
The Tuscarora cited the 1794 treaty against a Niagara reservoir; the Court found no treaty applied and let 1,383 acres be taken.
- Treaty
- Treaty of Canandaigua (1794) invoked; Tuscarora title held in fee
- Nations
- Tuscarora Nation (Haudenosaunee)
- When
- 1958-1960
- Land affected
- Tuscarora land taken for the reservoir.
- Legal aftermath
- Takings upheld with compensation. Shows how the form of title (fee vs. trust) and licensee condemnation authority can defeat treaty arguments.
What happened
The Tuscarora Nation argued that the Treaty of Canandaigua (1794) shielded its land in western New York. In that treaty, Article III promised the Seneca Nation that the United States "will never claim the same, nor disturb" them in the free use of their lands. The Tuscarora had bought their 4,329-acre tract in fee simple from the Holland Land Company in 1804, with help from the Secretary of War.
In Public Law 85-159 (August 21, 1957), Congress directed the Federal Power Commission to license the Niagara hydroelectric project. In January 1958 the Commission licensed the New York Power Authority, and the revised plan for the reservoir included 1,383 acres of Tuscarora land. The Court of Appeals blocked taking that land, but the Supreme Court reversed in 1960. The majority held that the Tuscarora land was not a federal "reservation" under the Federal Power Act, so the Act's extra protections did not apply, and that licensees could condemn Indian-owned land with just compensation. On the treaty argument, the majority said the Canandaigua treaty was with the Seneca, who sold their interest in 1797, so the Tuscarora title was "free of any treaty."
Justice Black, joined by the Chief Justice and Justice Douglas, dissented, arguing the taking breached the government's long-standing protection of Indian homelands. The Court's ruling means this case is a loss of land through eminent domain after a treaty argument was rejected, not a court finding that a treaty was broken.
Good to know. The Court held that no treaty covered the Tuscarora land, so this was a taking where a treaty argument failed, not a ruled treaty violation.
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.
its title rests upon that conveyance, free of any treaty.
Federal Power Commission v. Tuscarora Indian Nation, 362 U.S. 99 (1960) (Cornell LII)which included 1,383 acres of the Tuscaroras' lands.
Federal Power Commission v. Tuscarora Indian Nation, 362 U.S. 99 (1960), dissentthe United States will never claim the same, nor disturb the Seneka nation, nor any of the Six Nations
Treaty with the Six Nations, 1794 (Treaty of Canandaigua), OSU Tribal Treaties Database
Research notes. Important correction: the majority held no treaty covered the Tuscarora land (the 1794 treaty was with the Seneca, who sold their interest in 1797), so this is not an adjudicated treaty violation; the atlas should label it a taking where a treaty argument failed. The input's 'about 1,383 acres' is now verified from the opinion. The input says three Justices dissented (Black, Warren, Douglas) and 'Section 21 of the Act', both consistent with the text. Whether the Federal Power Commission's licensing of the Power Authority counts as 'executive_action' vs Congress's 1957 direction is a judgment call. Compensation amount not found. The Tuscarora's own account was not consulted. The vote count is not given because the opinion shows Justice Brennan concurring in the result and three Justices dissenting.
Who is doing the work
Working with these nations
- Oneida Indian Nation Nation government About 18,000 acres in trust (2022 est.), 25,000-acre cap under 2013 agreement
- Rematriation Native-led Indigenous women-led media, education, community advocacy Give on their site Website
- The Nature Conservancy (TNC) Allied land trust Funder/partner in several tribal land returns Website
Land return and Native-led work nearby
- Shinnecock Kelp Farmers Native-led Indigenous kelp farming and Shinnecock Bay restoration Give on their site Website
Native legal and land defense, nationally
- Native American Rights Fund (NARF) Native-led Litigation and legal advocacy for tribal sovereignty, treaty rights, land and resources Give on their site Website
- NDN Collective (LANDBACK Campaign) Native-led LANDBACK campaign (launched 2020; Mount Rushmore closure and return of Black Hills public lands), Indigenous… Give on their site Website
- Indian Land Tenure Foundation (ILTF) Native-led Land recovery and control by tribes and individual Indian landowners Website
- Decolonizing Wealth Project (Indigenous Earth Fund; California Tribal Land Return) Native-led Reparative philanthropy Give on their site Website
Gifts go straight to each organization; this atlas takes nothing. Listing is not endorsement: how organizations are listed.
Connections
These links were matched automatically by name or date and have not yet been reviewed by a person.
Nations named 2
Taken to court in 1
Located in 1
Policy era 1
- Termination1953
Concerns the instrument 1
Sources
- supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/362/99/legal text copy
The record’s fields
- What happened
- Tuscarora and the Niagara Power Project (1960) -- The Federal Power Commission licensed New York's Power Authority to build the Niagara reservoir, which required Tuscarora land. The Supreme Court (Mar. 7, 1960) held that land owned in fee simple by the Nation is not a 'reservation' under the Federal Power Act because the United States holds no interest in it, and that Section 21 of the Act lets licensees condemn Indian-owned land with just compensation; neither 25 U.S.C. 177 nor any treaty barred the taking. Three Justices dissented (Black, Warren, Douglas).
- Kind
- Violation
- Confidence
- High
- Nation review
- Not yet reviewed by this nation
- Notes
- Some details not yet checked against a source
- Some details unverified