Oneida Indian Nation v. Madison County
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 21210
| 2d Cir. | 2011Background
- OIN reacquired fee-title lands within Madison and Oneida Counties in the 1990s and refused to pay property taxes on them.
- Counties sought to foreclose or enforce tax sales; OIN asserted the lands were part of its reservation and exempt from taxation.
- Sherrill III (2005) held equity and federal limits precluded rekindling tribal sovereignty through relief; it led to waiver developments by the OIN.
- Before remand, the district court had relied on tribal sovereign immunity, Nonintercourse Act, notice defects, and state law exemptions; on remand the OIN abandoned immunity and Nonintercourse Act theories.
- Court on remand held: (a) immunity and Nonintercourse Act grounds abandoned; (b) due process notices can be sustained; (c) state-law tax exemptions must be dismissed without prejudice; (d) injunctions vacated; (e) penalties/interest prior to Sherrill III limited in declaratory relief only.
- Remand directs amended judgments reflecting waiver irrevocability and dismissal of abandoned claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether OIN’s waiver of tribal immunity moots immunity grounds. | OIN waives immunity irrevocably. | Waiver may be moot or revocable in future; immunity still a live issue. | Immunity grounds abandoned; waiver irrevocable; immunity no longer dispositive. |
| Whether the redemption-notice provisions complied with due process. | OIN argues notices were constitutionally insufficient. | Counties provided actual notice well in advance per procedures. | Not sufficient to sustain due-process challenge; judgments in Counties’ favor on this claim. |
| Whether state tax exemptions under NY law should be adjudicated in federal court. | Exemptions under NYIL §6 and RPTL §454 support OIN relief. | State-law questions are novel/complex; better left to state courts. | Decline supplemental jurisdiction; dismiss state-law claims without prejudice. |
| Whether penalties and interest pre-dating Sherrill III are barred by equity or immunity. | Equity precludes penalties for pre-Sherrill III periods; immunity may bar enforcement. | Penalties/interest could be collected; immunity no longer controls post-waiver. | Declaratory relief that no penalties/interest pre-Sherrill III is warranted; injunctions vacated. |
| Whether the district court should abstain or defer on state-law components. | Declined to abstain; retained posture consistent with prior rulings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation, 544 U.S. 197 (U.S. 2005) (equity limits on tribe’s postures; disestablishment questions left open)
- Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y. v. County of Oneida, 414 U.S. 661 (U.S. 1974) (federal jurisdiction over land claims; can be broad)
- Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y. v. City of Sherrill, 345 F.3d 89 (2d Cir. 2003) (precedent on sovereignty and land claims; not disestablishment ruling)
- Sherrill II, 337 F.3d 139 (2d Cir. 2003) (affirmed injunctions; later abrogated by Sherrill III on equity grounds)
- Sherrill III, 544 U.S. 197 (U.S. 2005) (addressed whether ancient reservation was disestablished or diminished; upheld limits on relief)
- Moe v. Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes, 425 U.S. 463 (U.S. 1976) (abstention/equitable limits for tribal suits; trustee action principle)
- Cohill v. City of Chicago, 484 U.S. 343 (U.S. 1988) (factors for supplemental jurisdiction; judicial economy/comity)