A federal appeals court dealt two Cayuga tribes another blow on Thursday, refusing to give them another chance to prove ownership of 64,000 acres in New York.

The Cayuga Nation of New York and the Seneca-Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma had asked a full panel of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider their land claim. The tribes said the court, in 2-1 decision on June 28, went too far in dismissing the decades-old case.

But the court rejected the tribes' request, clearing the way for a possible appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. In a story published today in The Syracuse Post-Standard, leaders of the two tribes said they would keep fighting, a sentiment recently voiced by another tribal official.

"We find that decision wrong and insulting and we intend to fight on in courts and do everything we can to have that decision overturned," LeRoy Howard, the Seneca-Cayuga Tribe's former chief, said at a House hearing on July 15.

It was the Supreme Court that set the stage for the dismissal of the Cayuga case. On March 29, the court issued its decision in Sherrill v. Oneida Nation, a ruling that has had wide impacts on land claims in New York.

By an 8-1 vote, the court held that the Oneida Nation couldn't "unilaterally" assert sovereignty over its 250,000-acre land claim area. The majority said the passage of time between the loss of the land and the tribe's reacquisition of it would "disrupt" the settled expectations of non-Indian communities.

Relying heavily on the "disruptive" theme, the 2nd Circuit said the Cayuga tribes waited too long to make their case. The lawsuit was filed in 1980, although tribal leaders long complained about the theft of their land.

In the 2-1 decision, the 2nd Circuit acknowledged that the land was taken from the tribes illegally. But the court nonetheless concluded that the Sherrill decision "dramatically altered the legal landscape" of tribal claims.

"Under the Sherrill formulation, this type of possessory land claim -- seeking possession of a large swath of central New York State and the ejectment of tens of thousands of landowners -- is indisputably disruptive," Judge Jose Cabranes wrote.

But a third judge dissented, giving hope to the tribes that an en banc panel of the court would reconsider the case. In other circuits, split decisions often get a rehearing.

The Bush administration, through the Department of Justice and the Bureau of Indian Affairs, has said it continues to support the land claim. Government attorneys had also asked the 2nd Circuit to rehear the case.

Government support, however, couldn't convince the Supreme Court in the Oneida case. Although the U.S. wasn't a party, the justices asked the government to file a brief stating its views.

The brief backed the Oneida Nation and urged the high court not to overturn the 2nd Circuit's 2-1 decision in the tribe's favor. The justices took on the case anyway, ultimately ruling against the Oneidas, who have since been hit with millions of dollars in property tax bills for land they own in two counties. The tribe is fighting the matter in court.

The Cayuga Nation and the Seneca-Cayuga Tribe have been confronted with challenges as well. Local officials say they have a right to enforce their laws on properties that the tribes reacquired.

The tribes also lost their settlement with the state of New York. Outgoing Gov. George Pataki (R) had previously agreed to end the lawsuit by giving each tribe a casino in the Catskills. The deal was put on hold after the Sherrill decision and might not be revived.

Meanwhile, the Oneida and Cayuga tribes have submitted land-into-trust applications to the BIA. It could take years before the agency makes a decision. The Seneca-Cayuga Tribe, however, recently paid a $70,000 property tax bill on 229 acres it owns in New York.

Relevant Links:
Cayuga Nation - http://tuscaroras.com/cayuganation
Seneca-Cayuga Tribe - http://www.eighttribes.org/seneca-cayuga

Cayuga Nation Decision:
Cayuga Nation v. New York (June 28, 2005)

Oneida Nation Decision:
Syllabus | Opinion [Ginsburg] | Concurrence [Souter] | Dissent [Stevens]