Oneida Indian Nation of NY v. Madison County
605 F.3d 149
2d Cir.2011Background
- OIN acquired fee-title lands in the 1990s within Madison and Oneida Counties and refused to pay property taxes; foreclosure proceedings were pursued by counties.
- District court granted relief on four grounds including tribal immunity, Nonintercourse Act, due process, and state tax exemptions; we affirmed only immunity basis in Oneida I.
- On certiorari, the Supreme Court vacated and remanded; OIN waived tribal immunity and abandoned Nonintercourse Act arguments on remand.
- On remand, court held OIN abandoned immunity and Nonintercourse Act defenses; remaining grounds were due process and state-law exemptions.
- Court held due-process notices were constitutionally sufficient; declined supplemental jurisdiction over state-law exemptions and vacated injunctive relief; reserved or dismissed state claims without prejudice; penalties/interest relief limited to pre-Sherrill III period; disestablishment claim addressed as before.
- Court directed amended judgments reflecting rulings and irrevocable waiver of immunity with judicial-estoppel language.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Immunity and Nonintercourse abandonment | OIN waived immunity; immunity no longer relevant | Waiver insufficient to moot immunity | Immunity abandoned; grounds vacated; Nonintercourse abandoned; claims dismissed with prejudice on those grounds |
| Due process of redemption notices | Notice timing violated due process under Mullane/Jones | Notices adequate; timing reasonable | Notices constitutionally sufficient; Counties prevail on due-process claims |
| State-law tax exemptions and supplemental jurisdiction | Exemptions under NYIL § 6 and RPTL § 454 apply; state claims must be kept | Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction | Decline supplemental jurisdiction; dismiss state-law claims without prejudice; vacate injunctive relief related to exemptions |
| Penalties and interest and injunctions | Equitable/IMmunity barred penalties pre-Sherrill III | No immunity barrier; penalties may apply | Declaratory relief that penalties/interest not liable pre-Sherrill III; vacate injunctive relief; affirm in part on pre-2005 penalties |
| Disestablishment of the Oneida reservation | Reservation not disestablished | Disestablishment disputed | Disestablishment claims affirmed as previously decided; no change in result |
Key Cases Cited
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (Supreme Court, 1950) (due-process notice standards define notice adequacy)
- Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220 (Supreme Court, 2006) (actual notice satisfies due process when adequate to inform of pendency and allow response)
- McCann v. Scaduto, 71 N.Y.2d 164 (N.Y. Ct. of App., 1987) (due process requires personal notice of tax-lien sale; timelines matter)
- Sherrill v. City of New York / Sherrill III, 544 U.S. 197 (Supreme Court, 2005) (federal equity limits tribal sovereignty revival; reservation status in play)
- Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343 (Supreme Court, 1988) (factors for exercising supplemental jurisdiction; judicial-economy/comity considerations)
- Gould v. Cayuga Indian Nation of New York, 14 N.Y.3d 614 (N.Y. Ct. of Appeals, 2010) (recent state-law interpretation of 'reservation' not controlling on NYIL § 6/RPTL § 454 without state court guidance)