981 F.3d 157
2d Cir.2020Background
- The dispute concerns a 19.6‑acre parcel in Vernon, Oneida County, NY, located within the Oneida reservation as recognized by the 1794 Treaty of Canandaigua.
- The United States never withdrew the parcel from the reservation; the 1842 New York–Oneida treaty did not convey the parcel and expressly described certain lots (including Lot 3/Marble Hill) as retained for collective occupation.
- In 2015 Melvin L. Phillips, a Nation member, recorded a quitclaim deed and trust declaration (the Orchard Party Trust) purporting to convey the 19.6 acres to himself as trustee, claiming Orchard Party/Orchard Hill affiliation.
- The Oneida Indian Nation sued (2017) for declaratory and injunctive relief that Phillips/trust have no interest in the parcel and that the recordings are void; Phillips counterclaimed seeking mirror relief.
- The district court (N.D.N.Y.) dismissed Phillips’s counterclaim (Nov. 2018) on sovereign‑immunity and related grounds, and granted the Nation judgment on the pleadings (July 2019), holding title never transferred to Phillips. Phillips appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Oneida's Argument | Phillips's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether legal title to the 19.6‑acre parcel passed to Phillips or his ancestors | Title remained tribal (Oneida reservation); treaties and federal law show no transfer to Phillips | Ancestors/Orchard Party obtained proprietary rights (or Phillips acquired title) allowing his deed/trust | Held for Oneida: treaties do not transfer title to Phillips; title not properly conveyed to him |
| Whether the 1838 Buffalo Creek or 1842 NY treaty effectuated private transfers to the Orchard Party | Neither treaty ceded or recognized proprietary rights in the parcel to a separate Orchard Party | Treaty language and payments support Orchard Party rights to arrange sales or ownership | Held for Oneida: Article 13 and 1842 treaty do not effect a cession or private proprietary transfer; Orchard Party not a separate titleholder |
| Whether the Sherrill equitable defense (or other equitable defenses) bars the Nation’s claim | Nation: Sherrill inapplicable; parcel remained in Indian use/residence and not subjected to longstanding non‑Indian character or state regulation | Phillips: invokes Sherrill (and other equitable defenses) to negate Nation’s claim | Held for Oneida: Phillips cannot satisfy Sherrill factors (no long non‑Indian character, no continuous state regulation, no long delay in asserting rights); other equitable defenses also fail as pleaded |
| Whether tribal sovereign immunity bars Phillips’s counterclaim or is subject to exceptions (immovable‑property or recoupment waiver) | Oneida: immune from suit; immovable‑property exception inapplicable here | Phillips: counters that immovable‑property exception or waiver/recoupment permits his counterclaim | Held: District court dismissal affirmed—immovable‑property exception does not apply; court rejects Phillips’s sovereign‑immunity arguments (court notes recoupment waiver argument in concurrence but affirms on merits) |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation, 544 U.S. 197 (2005) (establishes equitable defense factors for long‑ago tribal land claims)
- Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y. State v. Oneida County, N.Y., 414 U.S. 661 (1974) (federal recognition of Oneida land claims; Indian title governed by federal law)
- Oneida County v. Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y. State, 470 U.S. 226 (1985) (Nonintercourse Act and reservation status jurisprudence sustaining Oneida rights)
- Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community, 572 U.S. 782 (2014) (principles on tribal sovereign immunity and limits on suits against tribes)
- Oklahoma Tax Comm’n v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Oklahoma, 498 U.S. 505 (1991) (holding that a tribe’s initiation of suit does not broadly waive sovereign immunity for counterclaims)
- Stockbridge‑Munsee Community v. New York, 756 F.3d 163 (2d Cir. 2014) (Second Circuit application and framing of the Sherrill equitable defense)