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