RESPONDENT:County of Oneida, New York
LOCATION:The White House
DOCKET NO.: 72-851
DECIDED BY: Burger Court (1972-1975)
LOWER COURT: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
CITATION: 414 US 661 (1974)
ARGUED: Nov 06, 1973 / Nov 07, 1973
DECIDED: Jan 21, 1974
George C. Shattuck – for petitioners
Jeremiah Jochnowitz – for the State of New York, as amicus curiae, by special leave of Court
William L. Burke – for respondent
Media for Oneida Indian Nation of New York v. County of Oneida, New York
- Opinion Announcement – January 21, 1974
- Oral Argument – November 07, 1973
- Oral Argument – November 06, 1973
Audio Transcription for Oral Argument – November 07, 1973 in Oneida Indian Nation of New York v. County of Oneida, New York
Audio Transcription for Oral Argument – November 06, 1973 in Oneida Indian Nation of New York v. County of Oneida, New York
Audio Transcription for Opinion Announcement – January 21, 1974 in Oneida Indian Nation of New York v. County of Oneida, New York
Warren E. Burger:
Thank you, Mr. Justice Stewart.
The judgment and opinion in number 72-851, Oneida Indian Nation of New York against the County Of Oneida will be announced by Mr. Justice White.
Byron R. White:
This case began when two Oneida Indian tribes sued to recover the rental value of certain lands that they alleged has been illegally taken from them by the State of New York very early in the history as nations.
They claimed that their rights were rooted in aboriginal possession in various treaties and in a Federal statute.
The District Court dismissed the case for want of jurisdiction, holding that the case could not arise under Federal Law in the meaning of Sections 1331, the in general federal question section, or within the meaning of Section 1362, a special jurisdictional section with respect to Indian tribe litigation.
The Court of Appeals affirm the dismissal, we have a different view.
We hold for the reasons we stated at greater length in opinion and filed with the clerk that this litigation did arise under Federal law, and that the case should have been entertained in the District Court.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is therefore reversed.
Mr. Justice Rehnquist joined by Mr. Justice Powell has filed a concurring opinion.