Today, the Court surprised no one by denying the cert petition in Onondaga Nation v. New York. The Court did the same thing twice before, in the claims of the Cayuga and Oneida Nations. You may recall that the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the Onondaga land claims using this language: “The disruptive nature of the claims is indisputable as a matter of law.” According to the Second Circuit, all Indian land claims are too disruptive to be heard on the merits, as a matter of law. Later this year, Kate Fort, Nick Reo, and myself will publish a short paper in the Michigan Law Review’s online supplement, First Impressions, titled “Tribal Disruption and Indian Claims.” It is our intention to demonstrate that even the most disruptive tribal claims are beneficial to the governance of Indians and non-Indians alike on or near Indian country. We will expand this nub of an idea in a full-scale paper next yearGet the Story:
Commentary on the Final Dismissal of the Onondaga Nation’s Land Claims: “Tribal Disruption and Indian Claims” (Turtle Talk 10/15) 2nd Circuit Decision:
Onondaga Nation v. New York (October 19, 2012) District Court Decision:
Onondaga Nation v. New York (September 22, 2010)
Related Stories
Supreme Court declines to take up Onondaga
Nation land claim (10/15)Supreme Court delays action on Onondaga Nation land claim (10/7)
2nd Circuit won't reinstate Onondaga Nation land claim lawsuit (10/19)
Join the Conversation
