A Supreme Court Decision that will slow the spread of Indian Casinos

[Broken Glass Can]

Oneidas cannot expand tax-exempt holdings outside reservation

WASHINGTON (AP) - An Indian tribe cannot expand its tax-exempt holdings by buying up property that has been outside its reservation for generations, the Supreme Court ruled Tuesday.

In a near-unanimous decision, eight justices found the New York Oneidas cannot upend 190 years of local development and regulation. The decision reverses a lower appeals court ruling that the property in question could revert to Indian land.

The majority opinion written by Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg sided with the small city of Sherrill, N.Y., which has been locked in a long-running fight with the Oneidas over unpaid taxes on a gas station, convenience store, and defunct T-shirt factory.

The Oneidas claimed that because the Sherrill properties were once part of a sweeping 300,000-acre stretch of their land, those properties were no longer taxable by state and local officials after the tribe purchased the properties in 1997.


The Supreme Court disagreed, saying too much time had passed for the Oneidas to now claim tribal sovereignty on individual properties within the city, and that the Oneidas' move would create a "disruptive" patchwork of local and Indian jurisdiction.

The justices also noted the "long-standing, distinctly non-Indian character of the area and its inhabitants," and that most of the Oneidas left the area in the mid-1800's.

"The tribe cannot unilaterally revive its ancient sovereignty, in whole or in part, over the parcels at issue. The Oneidas long ago relinquished the reins of government and cannot regain them through open-market purchases from current titleholders," Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg wrote for the majority.

The federal government sided with the Oneidas, but New York state stood with Sherrill, arguing a victory for the Oneidas would lead to a surge of expanding reservations and jurisdictional headaches.

Justice John Paul Stevens was the lone dissenting vote, arguing the decision "is at war with at least two bedrock principles of Indian law," that only Congress can reduce a tribe's reservation, and that only Congress can change a reservation's tax status.

He also chided fellow jurists for worrying too much about the possible implications of allowing tribes like the Oneidas to expand reservations by reacquiring historic land.

"The majority's fear of opening a Pandora's box of tribal powers is greatly exaggerated," Stevens wrote.

The case is City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York, 03-855.

On the Net:

The opinion in City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York can be viewed at: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinio...ipopinion.html

[J.R.]

not in any appreciable or significant fashion