Looks like NYS just solved their budget for this year and many years to come
imagine how much the tribes owe NYS.......
Originally Posted By: Rich Tallcot
1 2 3 another one bites the dust
The Oneida Indian land claim filed in 1974 finally goes down in flames. No land, no money. Their casino sits on state sovereign fee simple property and they no longer have a land claim in which to make a settlement. The casino was ruled unconstitutional several years ago in a lawsuit filed by UCE.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
Decided: August 9, 2010
ONEIDA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK, ONEIDA TRIBE OF INDIANS OF WISCONSIN, ONEIDA OF THE THAMES,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
COUNTY OF ONEIDA, COUNTY OF MADISON,
STATE OF NEW YORK,
Based on the Supreme Court's decision in Sherrill, Cayuga had previously determined that equitable defenses apply to "disruptive" Indian land claims, and that possessory claims - claims premised on the assertion of a continuing right to possession of ancient tribal lands - are by their nature disruptive, in that they call into question settled land titles.
New York contends, in addition, that its sovereign immunity bars the contract-based claim on which the district court permitted the Oneidas to proceed.
For the reasons articulated below, we conclude that the district court correctly determined that Cayuga is controlling here, and that all claims dependent on the assertion of a current possessory interest in the subject lands are barred by equitable defenses. We further conclude, however, that the purportedly nonpossessory claim identified by that court is also barred, both by New York's sovereign immunity and by the equitable principles applied in Cayuga. In light of Cayuga's holding that equitable defenses apply to disruptive Indian land claims, we finally conclude that the alternative nonpossessory claim articulated on appeal by the plaintiffs, premised on a violation of the Nonintercourse Act, is also barred.
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that all claims raised by the plaintiffs in this action, whether possessory or purportedly nonpossessory, are subject to and barred by the defense recognized in Sherrill and Cayuga. The Oneidas' contract-based claim is further barred by New York's sovereign immunity. For this reason, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED as to the dismissal of plaintiffs' possessory claims, and REVERSED with respect to plaintiffs' nonpossessory claims. The case is REMANDED to the district court for the entry of judgment and the resolution of any pending motions.