Oneidas weasel

Knowing they would lose in SCOTUS, the Oneidas weaseled out of this one.


High court dismisses Oneida foreclosure case

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court has dismissed a case involving two New York counties that are trying to foreclose on land owned by the Oneida Indian Nation to settle a property tax dispute.

The court agreed in October to hear the case. It centers on the issue of whether tribal immunity from lawsuits prevents Madison and Oneida counties from foreclosing on tribal land.

The justices said in an unsigned opinion Monday that the Oneidas have agreed since to waive their immunity. They said that eliminates the high court's role in the case.

The court instructed the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to consider other issues raised in the dispute.

The case involves about 17,000 acres. The federal government has agreed to put most of the land into trust.


Cite as: 562 U. S. ____ (2011) 1
Per Curiam
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
MADISON COUNTY, NEW YORK ET AL. v. ONEIDA
INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

No. 10-72. Decided January 10, 2011

PER CURIAM.

We granted certiorari, 562 U. S.___(2010), on the questions
"whether tribal sovereign immunity from suit, to the
extent it should continue to be recognized, bars taxing
authorities from foreclosing to collect lawfully imposed
property taxes" and "whether the ancient Oneida reservation in
New York was disestablished or diminished." Pet.
for Cert. i. Counsel for respondent Oneida Indian Nation
advised the Court through a letter on November 30, 2010,
that the Nation had, on November 29, 2010, passed a
tribal declaration and ordinance waiving "its sovereign
immunity to enforcement of real property taxation
through foreclosure by state, county and local governments within
and throughout the United States." Oneida
Indian Nation, Ordinance No. O-10-1 (2010). Petitioners
Madison and Oneida Counties responded in a December 1,
2010 letter, questioning the validity, scope, and permanence of
that waiver; the Nation addressed those concerns
in a December 2, 2010 letter.

We vacate the judgment and remand the case to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
That court should address, in the first instance, whether
to revisit its ruling on sovereign immunity in light of this
new factual development, and-if necessary-proceed to
address other questions in the case consistent with its
sovereign immunity ruling. See Kiyemba v. Obama, 559
U. S. ___ (2010) (per curiam).

Petitioners are awarded costs in this Court pursuant to
this Court's Rule 43.2.

It is so ordered.