Shinnecock Indian Nation v. United States
112 Fed. Cl. 369
Fed. Cl.2013Background
- The Shinnecock Indian Nation alleges New York enacted statutes in 1859 allowing trustees to convey ~4,422 acres of tribal land to Southampton; the tribe did not authorize the conveyance and early 1859 suits by tribe members were dismissed.
- The Nation filed a federal suit in 2005 under the Nonintercourse Act seeking possession, damages from 1859 to present, ejectment and declaratory relief; the district court dismissed the suit on equitable grounds (laches/acquiescence) following binding precedent (City of Sherrill, Cayuga).
- The Shinnecock appealed and sought reconsideration in the district court; those proceedings remained pending.
- The Nation sued the United States in the Court of Federal Claims seeking $1.105 billion, alleging (1) breach of trust under the Nonintercourse Act, and (2) a federal common-law right (informed by international norms) to effective redress; it later sought leave to add a judicial‑takings claim.
- The United States moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the claims were unripe and beyond the Tucker Act/Indian Tucker Act waiver; it also opposed leave to amend as futile.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ripeness of CFClaims action | District-court judgment has immediate preclusive effect; claim of denial of effective redress is ripe despite ongoing appeal/reconsideration | Because district-court dismissal and appeal/reconsideration remain pending, CFClaims action is premature; relief may never be needed | Claims not ripe; dismissal for lack of jurisdiction granted |
| Nonintercourse Act creates money‑mandating duty | Nonintercourse Act imposes fiduciary trust duties on US (including judiciary) obligating adjudication on merits and compensation | Nonintercourse Act does not create specific, money‑mandating fiduciary duties enforceable against the US here; does not bar equitable defenses | Claim based on Nonintercourse Act dismissed for lack of Tucker Act/Indian Tucker Act jurisdiction |
| Federal common law / international‑law claim for redress | Federal common law informed by international norms (e.g., U.N. Declaration) creates a right to compensation for takings of indigenous lands | Tucker Act does not waive sovereign immunity for claims founded on federal common law; waivers cannot be implied or enlarged | Claim based on federal common law/international law dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
| Leave to amend to add judicial‑takings claim | Judicial dismissal of Nonintercourse Act suit effecting denial of property rights is a taking; plaintiff seeks leave to plead judicial taking | Cause of action against another court is not a vested property interest; judicial‑takings doctrine is unsettled and not adopted; amendment would be futile | Leave to amend denied as futile; judicial‑takings claim would fail |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y., 544 U.S. 197 (2005) (equitable doctrines like laches can bar disruptive, long‑delayed Indian land claims)
- Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y. v. Cnty. of Oneida, 414 U.S. 661 (1974) (federal courts have jurisdiction over Nonintercourse Act possessory claims)
- Cnty. of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y., 470 U.S. 226 (1985) (Oneida II: damages available under federal law for dispossession)
- United States v. Navajo Nation, 537 U.S. 488 (2003) (Indian Tucker Act threshold: identify specific substantive law creating duties)
- United States v. Navajo Nation, 556 U.S. 287 (2009) (clarifying Indian Tucker Act relation to Tucker Act claims)
- Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136 (1967) (ripeness requires fitness and hardship analysis)
- United States v. King, 395 U.S. 1 (1969) (waivers of sovereign immunity cannot be implied)
- United States v. Nordic Village, Inc., 503 U.S. 30 (1992) (statutory waivers construed strictly in favor of sovereign)
- Mitchell v. United States, 463 U.S. 206 (1983) (Tucker Act and money‑mandating sources standard)
- Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244 (1994) (vested property rights and Takings Clause principles)
- Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Fla. Dep’t of Envtl. Prot., 560 U.S. 702 (2010) (plurality recognizing, but not establishing as binding precedent, concept of judicial takings)