Note on use: Sherrill is a negative precedent — it limits how tribes can reassert sovereignty over long-alienated land. ATN must understand it precisely to navigate around it. Critically, Sherrill does NOT apply to land that has remained federally recognized as Indian Country. The Mendocino Indian Reservation is in a different posture than the parcels in Sherrill, and ATN's path forward (federal trust acquisition under the IRA) is exactly what Sherrill said tribes should do.
Background & Facts
The Oneida Indian Nation's original 1788 treaty reservation in central New York covered roughly 300,000 acres. Over the next two centuries, through illegal state purchases and various transfers, the land passed almost entirely into non-Indian fee ownership. The Oneida largely scattered or were displaced.
In the 1990s, having grown into a major economic enterprise (largely from the Turning Stone casino), the Oneida Nation began purchasing fee parcels within the boundaries of its historic reservation on the open market. The tribe then asserted sovereign immunity from City of Sherrill property taxes on those reacquired parcels, arguing the parcels were part of the Oneida reservation and therefore Indian Country.
The Supreme Court ruled 8-1 against the tribe.
The Court's Holding
Justice Ginsburg, writing for an 8-1 majority, held that the Oneida Nation could not unilaterally re-establish sovereign authority over land that had been outside tribal possession for nearly 200 years. The Court invoked equitable doctrines — laches, acquiescence, and impossibility — and emphasized "the long lapse of time, during which the Oneidas did not seek to revive their sovereign control through equitable relief in court, and the attendant dramatic changes in the character of the properties." The Court noted that the proper path was for the Oneida to apply to the Secretary of the Interior to take the land into trust under the Indian Reorganization Act.
Key Holding (and Its Limits):
A tribe cannot unilaterally reassert sovereign authority over land that has been outside its possession for generations by simply purchasing it on the open market. Equitable defenses (laches, acquiescence) bar that kind of unilateral re-sovereigntization. BUT — and this is the key Sherrill caveat — the Court explicitly identified the IRA trust acquisition process as the proper path forward. Sherrill does not block tribal land restoration; it channels it through the federal trust process.
Key Language
"The wrongs of which OIN complains in this action occurred during the early years of the Republic. For the past two centuries, New York and its county and municipal units have continuously governed the territory. The Oneidas did not seek to regain possession of their aboriginal lands by court decree until the 1970's."
"Given the longstanding, distinctly non-Indian character of the area and its inhabitants, the regulatory authority constantly exercised by New York State and its counties and towns, and the Oneidas' long delay in seeking judicial relief against parties other than the United States, we hold that the Tribe cannot unilaterally revive its ancient sovereignty, in whole or in part, over the parcels at issue."
"The Oneidas can apply to the Secretary [of the Interior] for grant of land into trust, the proceeding by which lands are taken out of state and local jurisdiction and placed under federal protection."
Emphasis added — this sentence is the entire road map for ATN's land-restoration strategy.
How ATN Navigates Sherrill
Sherrill is a precedent ATN must understand to avoid, not embrace. The case stings — it cuts off one route — but it explicitly preserves another. ATN's strategy maps onto the route Sherrill kept open.
Where ATN's posture differs from Oneida's:
- 1. Mendocino is not 200-year-alienated land. Sherrill's central fact was a "long lapse of time" during which the parcels were "continuously governed" by state and local authorities and assumed a "distinctly non-Indian character." The Mendocino Indian Reservation was federally established in 1856 and has had continuous (if contested) federal Indian status since. It is not the same factual posture as 19th-century Oneida fee parcels in central New York.
- 2. ATN's claim is not "buy and assert." Oneida's strategy was to purchase open-market fee parcels and then unilaterally claim sovereignty. ATN's strategy is the opposite: assert continuous federal-recognized status for already-existing reservation land, and use the IRA trust process for any new acquisitions. That is the path Sherrill expressly endorsed.
- 3. Sherrill's equitable doctrines are most powerful against tribes that "delayed." ATN has actively maintained federal-status assertions and has not slept on its rights. Laches requires both delay and prejudice — neither is established for a tribe that has been continuously asserting and pursuing sovereignty.
- 4. The IRA path is the answer. Sherrill's most important sentence — "The Oneidas can apply to the Secretary for grant of land into trust" — is the road map. Carcieri later added the "1934 federal jurisdiction" requirement, but ATN's 1856 reservation establishment satisfies that test.
- 5. Sherrill is about reacquisition, not retrocession. Sherrill addresses tribes trying to acquire new sovereignty over old land. PL280 retrocession is the opposite: it concerns whether the federal government should withdraw a delegated jurisdictional grant from the state. Sherrill has nothing to say about retrocession proceedings under 25 U.S.C. § 1323.
For PL280 specifically: Sherrill does not affect PL280 jurisdictional analysis. It addresses land status, not jurisdictional reach. Even if every parcel within historical reservation boundaries were in fee status (and they are not), PL280 retrocession would still operate on the existing trust land — and Sherrill has no application there.
The lesson ATN takes: Document continuous federal status. Pursue trust acquisition through the IRA process. Avoid the "buy fee land and assert sovereignty" strategy that triggered Sherrill. Use the federal channels Sherrill expressly endorsed.
Related Cases
- Carcieri v. Salazar (2009) — The "1934 federal jurisdiction" requirement for IRA trust acquisitions Sherrill pointed to
- McGirt v. Oklahoma (2020) — Reservation status persists absent express congressional disestablishment — a counterweight to Sherrill's equitable defenses
- Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831) — Federal trust relationship that Sherrill channels tribes into using
- Argument: State Encumbrance of Indian Country