State of New York v. Shinnecock Indian Nation
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 12948
2d Cir.2012Background
- Shinnecock Indian Nation sought to build a 61,000-square-foot casino on Westwoods (80 acres) in Southampton, NY without state or local permits.
- New York and Town of Southampton sued in state court for gaming, environmental, zoning, and wetlands violations; removal to federal court followed.
- District court issued a bench injunction prohibiting development absent state/local compliance; found no tribal immunity bar and extinguished aboriginal title, and held IGRA superseded any federal common-law rights.
- Shinnecock argued recent federal recognition moots the injunction; district court and courts below rejected mootness.
- On appeal, the Second Circuit vacated and remanded for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, declining to reach the merits of the state/local claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal subject-matter jurisdiction exists | Shinnecock and NY/Town rely on Grable-like federal question via aboriginal title. | Case arises from state/local claims; no federal question unless well-pleaded. | Subject-matter jurisdiction absent |
| Whether the action presents a substantial federal question | Federal-law issue regarding aboriginal title and Indian lands under Grable framework. | Grable does not apply because the federal issue is not necessary to resolve state/local claims. | Grable exception not satisfied |
| Whether the Shinnecock hold aboriginal title to Westwoods | Aboriginal title exists and governs regulatory right; state/locals cannot regulate. | Aboriginal title extinguished in 17th century; land not Indian country. | No federal jurisdiction; (court did not reach merits) |
| Whether tribal sovereign immunity bars the action | Kiowa broad immunity may shield tribe from injunctive relief; immunity applies off-reservation. | Kiowa limits not absolute; immunity may not bar this injunctive action. | Court did not reach merits due to jurisdictional defect; issue unresolved here |
Key Cases Cited
- Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc. v. Darue Eng’g & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308 (U.S. 2005) (federal-question jurisdiction requires a substantial federal issue actually disputed)
- Oneida Indian Nation v. County of Oneida, 414 U.S. 661 (U.S. 1974) (possessory rights to tribal lands arise under federal law; well-pleaded rule remains)
- Franchise Tax Bd. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1983) (well-pleaded complaint rule for federal-question jurisdiction)
- Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (U.S. 1987) (federal defenses do not create federal-question jurisdiction)
- Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma v. Manufacturing Technologies, Inc., 523 U.S. 751 (U.S. 1998) (tribal immunity scope is complex and not universally absolute; broader dicta not controlling)
- Mescalero Apache Tribe v. Jones, 411 U.S. 164 (U.S. 1973) (off-reservation conduct generally subject to nondiscriminatory state law absent consent or waiver)
- Potawatomi, 498 U.S. 505 (U.S. 1991) (distinguishes on-reservation vs off-reservation regulatory authority and immunity effects)
- Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49 (U.S. 1978) (self-governance and tribal sovereignty central to immunity analysis)
- Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation v. Wold Engineering, 476 U.S. 877 (U.S. 1986) (state court access vs tribal immunity when adjudicating tribal self-governance matters)
- Puyallup Tribe, Inc. v. Department of Game of the State of Washington (Puyallup III), 433 U.S. 165 (U.S. 1977) (off-reservation regulatory issues and tribal self-governance distinctions)
- Worcester v. Georgia, 6 Pet. 515 (U.S. 1832) (sovereignty and territorial boundaries principles foundational to Indian nation status)