Countyof Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation of NY

1985-04-22

Headline: Three Oneida tribes allowed to sue for damages over a 1795 land sale, as the Court affirms their federal common-law possessory claim and limits federal court jurisdiction over the State’s indemnity claim.

Holding:

Real World Impact:

Allows tribes to bring federal common-law suits seeking damages over historic land sales.
Prevents federal courts from hearing state indemnity claims without state consent (limits suits against states).
Increases pressure on Congress to resolve long-running eastern Indian land claims.

Topics: Native American land claims, historic land disputes, state sovereign immunity, statute of limitations

Summary

Background

The Oneida Indian Nation of New York, the Oneida Nation of Wisconsin, and the Oneida of the Thames sued Oneida and Madison Counties in 1970. They said their ancestors conveyed about 100,000 acres to New York in 1795 in a deal that broke the 1793 Nonintercourse Act, so the sale was void. They sought rent for land the counties occupied for January 1, 1968 through December 31, 1969. A federal district court found the counties liable and awarded $16,694 for that two-year period; the Second Circuit affirmed liability. The State of New York had been added as a third-party defendant on an indemnity claim.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court held the tribes may sue under federal common law to enforce their possessory rights. The Court explained that federal law recognizes Indian aboriginal title and that the Nonintercourse Acts did not displace common-law remedies. The Court rejected defenses based on state statutes of limitations, abatement of the 1793 law, and ratification by later treaties. It declined to resolve whether the equitable defense of laches applies. The Court affirmed liability but reversed the courts’ exercise of federal ancillary jurisdiction over the counties’ indemnity claim against New York.

Real world impact

Tribes can pursue longstanding claims in federal court under federal common law. State governments may be protected from federal suits for indemnity unless they consent. The decision signals a need for Congress to act on many eastern Indian land claims.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Stevens dissented in one case, arguing the claim was barred by laches after 175 years of delay. Justice Brennan, joined by Justice Marshall, agreed with most of the opinion but would have reached a different result on state immunity.