Madison County v. Oneida Indian Nation of N. Y.

131 S. Ct. 704, 178 L. Ed. 2d 587, 562 U.S. 42, 22 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 747, 2011 U.S. LEXIS 16, 79 U.S.L.W. 3397
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedJanuary 10, 2011
Docket10-72
StatusPublished
Cited by19 cases

This text of 131 S. Ct. 704 (Madison County v. Oneida Indian Nation of N. Y.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Madison County v. Oneida Indian Nation of N. Y., 131 S. Ct. 704, 178 L. Ed. 2d 587, 562 U.S. 42, 22 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 747, 2011 U.S. LEXIS 16, 79 U.S.L.W. 3397 (U.S. 2011).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We granted certiorari, post, p. 960, 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. 0-10-1 (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.

*43 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. 131 (2010) (per curiam).

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

It is so ordered.

Justice Sotomayor took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Hinton v. Nation
District of Columbia, 2024
Medtronic Medical CR SRL v. Feliciano-Soto
58 F.4th 1 (First Circuit, 2023)
Cayuga Indian Nation of New York v. Seneca County
978 F.3d 829 (Second Circuit, 2020)
Cayuga Indian Nation of New York v. Seneca County
260 F. Supp. 3d 290 (W.D. New York, 2017)
Zubik v. Burwell
578 U.S. 403 (Supreme Court, 2016)
Sue/Perior Concrete & Paving, Inc. v. Lewiston Glof Course Corporation
25 N.E.3d 928 (New York Court of Appeals, 2014)
Cayuga Indian Nation v. Seneca County
761 F.3d 218 (Second Circuit, 2014)
Hamaatsa, Inc. v. Pueblo of San Felipe
2013 NMCA 094 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 2013)
Hamaatsa, Inc. v. Pueblo of San Felipe
New Mexico Court of Appeals, 2013
Cayuga Indian Nation v. Seneca County
890 F. Supp. 2d 240 (W.D. New York, 2012)
State of New York v. Shinnecock Indian Nation
686 F.3d 133 (Second Circuit, 2012)
Oneida Indian Nation of NY v. Madison County
605 F.3d 149 (Second Circuit, 2011)
Oneida Indian Nation v. Madison County
665 F.3d 408 (Second Circuit, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
131 S. Ct. 704, 178 L. Ed. 2d 587, 562 U.S. 42, 22 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 747, 2011 U.S. LEXIS 16, 79 U.S.L.W. 3397, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/madison-county-v-oneida-indian-nation-of-n-y-scotus-2011.