City of Sherrill, New York v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York
This case addresses whether properties reacquired by the Oneida Indian Nation (OIN) are subject to taxation by the City of Sherrill, New York. Under the principle of federal preemption, reservation land is not subject to state taxation without express congressional authorization. However, determining whether the disputed land is reservation land depends on the interpretation of the United States constitution and several treaties.
The OIN originally inhabited the land in dispute prior to the arrival of Europeans in America. In 1793, in response to a rash of unjust sales of Indian lands, Congress modified the Indian Trade and Intercourse Act (Nonintercourse Act) to require congressional approval for the sale of all Indian land. A year later, Congress passed the Treaty of Canandaigua, which officially recognized the Oneida reservation. During the next several years, against the advice of the federal government and in violation of the Nonintercourse Act, the State of New York and private individuals repeatedly purchased Indian land from the Oneida. In 1838, the Treaty of Buffalo Creek was enacted. Under the terms of the treaty, the Oneidas agreed to exchange their New York lands for lands in Kansas, if certain conditions were met. The exchange, however, was never completed and the Oneidas never relocated to Kansas. During the remainder of the nineteenth century, the Oneidas continued to sell their reservation land to non-Oneida buyers. Beginning in the 1990s, however, members of the tribe began reacquiring the property in open-market transactions.
In this case, the OIN contends that Congress did not approve the sale of the reservation land and, therefore, the land is still part of the OIN reservation and not subject to local taxation. Sherrill disagrees, claiming the land is no longer part of an Indian reservation. According to Sherrill, the 1838 Buffalo Creek Treaty formally disestablished the Oneida reservation. In addition, Sherrill argues the OIN has not maintained continuous tribal existence over the last century so as to be entitled to claim the properties as reservation land.
The United States District Court determined that the land was part of the OIN reservation and Sherrill did not show that Congress had disestablished the reservation. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that the Treaty of Buffalo Creek contains no explicit language disestablishing the OIN. In addition, the court held that the Nonintercourse Act does not require the OIN to demonstrate continuous existence in order to assert a claim to its reservation land. Accordingly, the disputed land was still part of the OIN reservation and not subject to taxation by Sherrill.
Questions Presented:
1. Whether alleged reservation land is Indian country pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1151 and this Court's decision in Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie
Tribal Gov't , 522 U.S. 520 (1998) ("Venetie") where the land was neither set aside by the federal government nor superintended by the federal government?
2. Whether alleged reservation land was set aside by the federal government for purposes of Indian country analysis under 18 U.S.C. § 1151 and Venetie where the 1788 Treaty of Fort
Schuyler terminated all aboriginal title and the alleged reservation was established by the State of New York in the 1788 Treaty of Fort Schuyler, and not by any federal treaty, action or
enactment?
3. Whether the 1838 Treaty of Buffalo Creek, which required the Oneidas to permanently abandon their lands in New York, resulted in the disestablishment of the Oneida's alleged New York
reservation?
4. Whether alleged reservation land may (i) remain Indian country or (ii) remain subject to the protections of the Indian Trade and Intercourse Act, 25 U.S.C. § 177, if the tribe claiming
reservation status and Indian Trade and Intercourse Act protection ceases to exist?
