Supreme Court to review tax status of
Indian land
June 29, 2004
By Gina Holland, Associated Press writer
To submit a Letter to the Editor: [email protected]
Washington, D.C. - The Supreme Court said Monday it would clarify when
governments can tax Indian property.
The tiny city of Sherrill, New York, and the state of New York had
asked justices to review a lower court's decision barring the taxation
of a textile plant and a gas station-convenience store owned by the
Oneida Indian Nation.
The Bush administration urged the court to stay out of the extended
fight between the Oneidas and the government over land. The justices
announced that they would hear arguments in the case, likely in the
fall.
The Oneida Indians of New York, Wisconsin
and Ontario [Canada] have been in a long-running
lawsuit against New York state for the return of 250,000 acres the
state purchased from the tribes in the 18th and 19th centuries.
The Supreme Court case involves "only a tiny fraction" of
the disputed land,
Solicitor General Theodore Olson told justices in a filing.
He said the Oneida Indians reacquired some properties within the
boundaries of the reservation that was recognized by the U.S.
government in a 1794 treaty.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Indian-owned
land cannot be taxed by the state or local government.
Ira Sacks, the attorney for Sherrill, told the court that the New York
Oneidas ceased to exist as a tribe in the late 19th and early 20th
centuries and lost the right to have untaxable "Indian
country."
Sacks said if the appeal court decision stands "the tax
base and viability of cities such as the city of Sherrill -- across
New York and elsewhere --
will be imperiled."
He said Sherrill is New York's smallest city, covering one and a half
square miles with about 3,000 residents.
The case is Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York,
03-855.
Also Monday, Oklahoma black Seminoles lost a Supreme
Court appeal over their
claim that they've been cheated out of social service benefits because
of their African ancestry.
The court refused without comment to consider reinstating their
lawsuit against the federal government.
A judge had ruled that their lawsuit could not move ahead unless the
Seminole Nation of Oklahoma was part of it.
But that's not possible because the tribe's sovereign status protects
it from federal lawsuits.
The lawyer for the black Seminoles, members of two of fourteen
bands within the tribe, said that the lawsuit was their only option to
get a share of benefits that are being enjoyed by other Seminoles.
At issue is $56 million the tribe received from the federal
government in 1990 as compensation for the 1823 taking of Seminole
lands in Florida.
The money funds social service programs, but those are generally
reserved for Seminoles descended from a member of the tribe as it
existed in Florida in 1823.
Black Seminoles were not recognized as tribal members until a 1866
treaty.
They are descendants of escaped slaves who began living among the
tribe in
Florida.
The Bush administration had urged the court to reject the appeal. The
federal government's task is releasing money -- not deciding who
gets it -- government lawyers said.
The case is Davis v. United States of America, 03-1313.
|