Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation

E582724

Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation is a 2005 U.S. Supreme Court case in which the Court denied the Oneida Indian Nation sovereign authority over reacquired ancestral lands, emphasizing equitable doctrines and long-standing non-Indian governance.

All labels observed (3)

How this entity was disambiguated

Statements (49)

Predicate Object
instanceOf United States Supreme Court case
federal Indian law case
land rights case
areaOfLaw Native American law
federal Indian land claims
property law
arguedDate January 11, 2005
citation 544 U.S. 197
court Supreme Court of the United States
decisionDate March 29, 2005
dissentingOpinionBy John Paul Stevens
John Paul Stevens, in part
John Paul Stevens, joined in part by Ruth Bader Ginsburg
docketNumber 03-855
doctrineApplied acquiescence
impossibility
laches
fullName City of Sherrill, New York v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York
geographicFocus City of Sherrill, New York
linked to: Sherrill, New York

Oneida County, New York
holding The Oneida Indian Nation could not unilaterally reassert sovereign control over parcels of land it had reacquired in the City of Sherrill
The reacquired parcels were subject to local property taxation
impact Directed tribes to use the land-into-trust process under 25 U.S.C. § 465 (now 25 U.S.C. § 5108) to restore sovereign status to reacquired lands
Limited the ability of tribes to revive sovereignty over historically recognized reservation lands reacquired in fee
joinedByInMajority Anthony M. Kennedy
Antonin Scalia
Clarence Thomas
John Paul Stevens
Sandra Day O’Connor
Stephen G. Breyer
William H. Rehnquist
jurisdiction United States
legalIssue application of equitable doctrines to Indian land claims
tax immunity of tribal lands reacquired on the open market
tribal sovereignty over reacquired ancestral lands
majorityOpinionBy Ruth Bader Ginsburg
page 197
party City of Sherrill, New York
linked to: Sherrill, New York

Oneida Indian Nation of New York
linked to: Oneida nation
petitioner City of Sherrill, New York
linked to: Sherrill, New York
reasoning The Court emphasized the disruption that would result from reestablishing tribal sovereignty over lands long governed by state and local authorities
The Court emphasized the long passage of time since the original dispossession of the land
The Court relied on equitable considerations to deny the relief sought by the Oneida Indian Nation
relatedToPriorCase County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation (Oneida II)
Oneida Indian Nation v. County of Oneida (Oneida I)
relatedToTreaty Treaties between the United States and the Oneida Indian Nation recognizing Oneida reservation lands
reporter United States Reports
respondent Oneida Indian Nation of New York
linked to: Oneida nation
volume 544

How these facts were elicited

Referenced by (3)

Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.

Doctrine of Discovery appliedInCourtCase Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation
Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation fullName City of Sherrill, New York v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York
linked to: Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation
Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation holding The Oneida Indian Nation could not unilaterally reassert sovereign control over parcels of land it had reacquired in the City of Sherrill
linked to: Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation