Oneida Indian Nation of New York v. Madison Cnty.

• Decision Date: 20 October 2011
• Docket Number: 06–5168–cv (CON),Docket Nos. 05–6408–cv (L),06–5515–cv (CON).
• Citation: 665 F.3d 408
• Parties: ONEIDA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK, Plaintiff–Counter–Defendant–Appellee, v. MADISON COUNTY and Oneida County, New York, Defendants–Counter–Claimants–Appellants,Stockbridge–Munsee Community, Band of Mohican Indians, Putative Intervenor–Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

665 F.3d 408

ONEIDA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK, Plaintiff–Counter–Defendant–Appellee,

v.MADISON COUNTY and Oneida County, New York, Defendants–Counter–Claimants–Appellants,Stockbridge–Munsee Community, Band of Mohican Indians, Putative Intervenor–Appellant.

Docket Nos. 05–6408–cv (L)

06–5168–cv (CON)

06–5515–cv (CON).

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Argued: Nov. 6, 2007.Originally Decided: April 27, 2010.Vacated and Remanded by the Supreme Court of the United States: Jan. 10, 2011.Final Submission on Remand: Feb. 7, 2011.Decided: Oct. 20, 2011.

On original appeal:

David M. Schraver, David H. Tennant, John J. Field, Nixon Peabody LLP, Rochester, NY, for Defendants–Counter–Claimants–Appellants Madison County, New York, and Oneida County, New York.

Michael R. Smith, David A. Reiser, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, Washington, DC; Peter D. Carmen, Oneida Nation Legal Department, Verona, NY, for Plaintiff–Counter–Defendant–Appellee Oneida Indian Nation of New York.Don B. Miller, Don B. Miller, P.C., Boulder, CO, for Putative Intervenor–Appellant Stockbridge–Munsee Community, Band of Mohican Indians.Andrew D. Bing, Assistant Solicitor General (Barbara D. Underwood, Solicitor General; Daniel Smirlock, Deputy Solicitor General; and Peter H. Schiff, Senior Counsel, on the brief; Dwight A. Healy, White & Case LLP, New York, NY, of counsel) for Andrew M. Cuomo, Attorney General, for Amicus Curiae State of New York.Ronald J. Tenpas, Assistant Attorney General, Samuel C. Alexander, Elizabeth Ann Peterson, Kathryn E. Kovacs, U.S. Department of Justice, Environment & Natural Resources Division, Appellate Section, Washington, DC; Thomas Blaser, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC, for Amicus Curiae United States of America.On remand from U.S. Supreme Court:David M. Schraver, Nixon Peabody LLP, Rochester, NY, for Defendants–Counter–Claimants–Appellants Madison County, New York and Oneida County, New York.Seth P. Waxman, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff–Counter–Defendant–Appellee Oneida Indian Nation of New York.Don B. Miller, Don B. Miller, P.C., Boulder, CO, for Putative Intervenor–Appellant Stockbridge–Munsee Community, Band Of Mohican Indians.Andrew D. Bing, Deputy Solicitor General (Barbara D. Underwood, Solicitor General, on the brief), for Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, for Amicus Curiae State of New York.

Before: CABRANES, SACK, and HALL, Circuit Judges.

SACK, Circuit Judge:

These consolidated appeals, which have been returned to us on remand from the United States Supreme Court, once again call upon us to consider whether—and, if so, on what grounds—the plaintiff-appellee, the Oneida Indian Nation of New York (the “OIN”), is entitled to restrain the defendants-appellants, Madison County and Oneida County (the “Counties”), from foreclosing upon certain fee-title properties, acquired on the open market by the OIN in the 1990s, for which the OIN has refused to pay property tax. In our previous opinion, Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y. v. Madison County, 605 F.3d 149 (2d Cir.2010) (“ Oneida I ”), we concluded that the Counties were barred from foreclosing on these properties by virtue of the OIN's tribal sovereign immunity from suit. We therefore affirmed the judgments of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (David N. Hurd, Judge), which had issued parallel injunctions barring the Counties from enforcing their property-tax regimes against the OIN's properties through tax sale or foreclosure. See Oneida Indian Nation v. Oneida County, 432 F.Supp.2d 285, 292 (N.D.N.Y.2006) (“ Oneida County I ”); Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y. v. Madison County, 401 F.Supp.2d 219, 231–32 (N.D.N.Y.2005) (“ Madison County I ”). Although the district court rested its grant of judgment in each case on four independent grounds—(1) the OIN's tribal sovereign immunity from suit; (2) federal restrictions on the alienation of tribal lands under the Nonintercourse Act, 25 U.S.C. § 177; (3) inadequate notice to the OIN of the expiration of the Counties' respective redemption periods, in violation of due process; and (4) the exemption of “Indian reservation[s]” from property tax under New York state law, see Oneida County I, 432 F.Supp.2d at 289–90; Madison County I, 401 F.Supp.2d at 227–31—our decision on appeal affirmed the judgments solely on the basis of tribal sovereign immunity from suit. See Oneida I, 605 F.3d at 160.

Subsequent to our decision in Oneida I, the Counties successfully petitioned the United States Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari. While the case was pending before the Supreme Court, however, the OIN notified the Court that it had voluntarily waived its tribal sovereign immunity from suit. In light of that factual development, the Supreme Court vacated our judgment in Oneida I and remanded for further proceedings. The Court has instructed us, on remand, to “address, in the first instance, whether to revisit [our] ruling on sovereign immunity in light of this new factual development, and—if necessary—proceed to address other questions in the case consistent with [our] sovereign immunity ruling.” Madison County v. Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y., ––– U.S. ––––, 131 S.Ct. 704, 704, 178 L.Ed.2d 587 (2011) (per curiam).

After reviewing the parties' submissions on remand from the Supreme Court, we conclude that the district court's judgments can no longer be sustained on the basis we relied upon in Oneida I. The OIN has affirmatively disclaimed any reliance on the doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity from suit, and it thereby abandoned its declaratory claims against the Counties to the extent that they depended on such immunity. We further conclude that the OIN has abandoned its declaratory claims premised upon the Nonintercourse Act, 25 U.S.C. § 177.

Those dispositions leave two grounds remaining in support of the district court's judgments: the OIN's due-process claims, based upon the Counties' alleged failure to provide adequate notice to the OIN of the expiration of the redemption periods applicable to each County's respective tax-enforcement proceedings, and the OIN's claims that its properties are exempt from taxation under New York Indian Law § 6 and New York Real Property Tax Law § 454.

With respect to the due-process claims, we conclude that the district court erred in ruling that the redemption notices failed to comport with due process. We reverse the district court to the extent that it entered judgment in the OIN's favor on its claims for violations of the Fourteenth Amendment.

With respect to the OIN's claims arising under state tax law, we conclude that concerns of comity, fairness, and judicial economy warrant that we and the district court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them. We vacate the district court's judgments to the extent that they rest upon a determination that the OIN is entitled to property-tax exemptions under state law, and we remand with instructions to the district court to dismiss without prejudice the OIN's state-law claims. Because no grounds remain in support of the district court's award of permanent injunctive relief, we also vacate both injunctions in their entirety.

Finally, we affirm, in whole or in part, the district court's determinations as to several ancillary matters: First, we affirm the district court's subsidiary ruling in the Oneida County litigation (a ruling also arguably implicit in the Madison County litigation) that the OIN is not liable to pay penalties or interest for unpaid taxes accruing prior to March 29, 2005, on the ground that the Counties have forfeited their defense on this issue. Second, as in Oneida I, we affirm the district court's decision to decline to abstain from this litigation. Third, we affirm the denial of a motion by the Stockbridge–Munsee Community, Band of Mohican Indians seeking to intervene in this litigation. Lastly, we affirm the district court's dismissal of the Counties' counterclaims seeking a declaration that the Oneida Nation's ancient reservation was disestablished.

BACKGROUND

The background facts of this protracted and procedurally convoluted litigation are set forth in various opinions of this and other Courts. See, e.g., City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y., 544 U.S. 197, 203–12, 125 S.Ct. 1478, 161 L.Ed.2d 386 (2005) (“ Sherrill III ”); Oneida I, 605 F.3d at 152–56; Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y. v. City of Sherrill, 337 F.3d 139, 146–52 (2d Cir.2003) (“ Sherrill II ”), rev'd, Sherrill III, 544 U.S. 197, 125 S.Ct. 1478; Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y. v. City of Sherrill, 145 F.Supp.2d 226, 232–36 (N.D.N.Y.2001) (“ Sherrill I ”), aff'd in part, vacated and remanded in part, Sherrill II, 337 F.3d 139, rev'd, Sherrill III, 544 U.S. 197, 125 S.Ct. 1478.¹ We repeat them only insofar as we think necessary to an understanding of our resolution of these appeals.

The Oneida Nation's Ancient Reservation

The OIN is a federally recognized Indian tribe that is directly descended from the original Oneida Indian Nation (“Oneida Nation”), one of six Iroquois nations.² Sherrill III, 544 U.S. at 203, 125 S.Ct. 1478. The Oneida Nation's homeland once encompassed “some six million acres in what is now central New York [State].” Id. In 1788, pursuant to the Treaty of Fort Schuyler between the Oneida Nation and the State of New York, the Oneida Nation ceded title to the vast majority of its lands and retained a reservation of approximately 300,000 acres. Id. In 1790, Congress passed the first Indian Trade and Intercourse Act, also known as the Nonintercourse Act, a law barring the alienation of tribal land absent the acquiescence of the federal government.³ See Act of July 22, 1790, ch. 33, 1 Stat. 137. In 1794, the United States and various Iroquois nations, including the Oneida Nation, entered into the Treaty of Canandaigua. “That treaty both ‘acknowledge [d]’ the Oneida Reservation as established by the Treaty of Fort...