Upstate Citizens for Equality, Inc. v. United States
839 F.3d 556
2d Cir.2016Background
- The Oneida Indian Nation of New York (the Tribe) owns land in central New York and operates the Turning Stone casino; after City of Sherrill, the Tribe sought to reestablish sovereignty by asking the federal government to take Tribe-owned acreage into trust under §5 of the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA).
- In 2008 the Department of the Interior took ~13,000 acres of Tribe-owned land into trust; New York state and local entities opposed the decision and litigation followed challenging its constitutionality and statutory authority.
- Plaintiffs (two towns, a civic organization, and residents) argued the entrustment exceeded federal constitutional authority (Indian Commerce Clause, state sovereignty, Enclave Clause) and violated the IRA/Indian Land Consolidation Act (ILCA) definitions restoring opt-out tribes.
- The District Court granted summary judgment to the United States; this consolidated appeal followed. The court remanded for an administrative determination after Carcieri, and the agency later found the Oneidas were “under federal jurisdiction” in 1934.
- The Second Circuit affirmed: it held federal plenary power over Indian affairs permits land-into-trust, state sovereignty and the Enclave Clause do not bar the entrustment, and the Oneida Nation qualifies as a “tribe” under the ILCA and IRA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutional power to take land into trust under the Indian Commerce Clause | UCE: Congress lacks constitutional authority to take land-into-trust for tribes located entirely within one state | Gov: Indian Commerce Clause and treaty power give plenary authority to legislate regarding Indian affairs, including land acquisition | Held: Federal plenary power extends to taking land into trust for tribes; Indian Commerce Clause is not so geographically limited |
| State sovereignty / limits on federal power | Plaintiffs: Entrustment improperly infringes state sovereignty and cannot strip state jurisdiction over land | Gov: Congress may diminish state jurisdiction over Indian lands; Supreme Court precedent allows federal displacement of state authority | Held: Principles of state sovereignty do not bar §5 entrustment; states’ jurisdiction can be reduced by Congress |
| Enclave Clause (Art. I, §8, cl.17) | Plaintiffs: Federal acquisition requires state legislature consent because it cedes state jurisdiction | Plaintiffs argue Enclave Clause prohibits taking land without state consent to confer exclusive federal jurisdiction | Held: Enclave Clause applies only where federal exclusive jurisdiction is assumed; land-into-trust does not give exclusive federal control that extinguishes all state authority, so no consent required |
| Statutory eligibility under IRA and ILCA (opt-out/"tribe" definitions) | Plaintiffs: Oneidas’ 1936 opt-out bars §5 relief; ILCA §2201(1) restores §5 only for groups for which U.S. already holds trust land | Gov: ILCA restores §5 to opt-out tribes; §2201(1) should be read to cover the Oneidas; agency interpretations support broader reading | Held: Court reads §2201(1) to limit the "for which ... the United States holds lands in trust" clause to "community" (not to narrow all "tribe" terms); ILCA restored eligibility and Oneida meets IRA §465 requirements (including being under federal jurisdiction in 1934) |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation, 544 U.S. 197 (2005) (rejected market repurchases as restoring tribal sovereign authority; suggested §5 land-into-trust as proper avenue)
- Carcieri v. Salazar, 555 U.S. 379 (2009) (held IRA §465 applies only to tribes "under federal jurisdiction" in 1934)
- United States v. John, 437 U.S. 634 (1978) (federal acquisition can divest state criminal jurisdiction despite long periods of state control)
- Seminole Tribe v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (1996) (states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity limits congressional remedies, but does not immunize state jurisdiction over Indian affairs)
- Cotton Petroleum Corp. v. New Mexico, 490 U.S. 163 (1989) (Indian Commerce Clause gives Congress broad, non-interstate-limited power over Indian affairs)
- Monongahela Navigation Co. v. United States, 148 U.S. 312 (1893) (Congress may acquire land within a state as an exercise of constitutional powers)
- Cherokee Nation v. Southern Kansas Ry. Co., 135 U.S. 641 (1890) (similar precedent supporting federal authority to act concerning Indian land)
- Nevada v. Hicks, 533 U.S. 353 (2001) (states’ reservation jurisdiction can be stripped by Congress)
- Surplus Trading Co. v. Cook, 281 U.S. 647 (1930) (Indian reservations are not federal enclaves for purposes of exclusive state-law displacement)