Oneidas Dodge Potentially Adverse Supreme Court Ruling In R/E Tax-Dodging Case; 11th Hour Waiver Of Lawsuit Immunity Moots High Court's Role In Case

The Associated Press reports:

• The U.S. Supreme Court has dismissed a case involving two New York counties that are trying to foreclose on land owned by the Oneida Indian Nation to settle a property tax dispute. The court agreed in October to hear the case. It centers on the issue of whether tribal immunity from lawsuits prevents Madison and Oneida counties from foreclosing on tribal land.

• The justices said in an unsigned opinion Monday that the Oneidas have agreed since to waive their immunity. They said that eliminates the high court's role in the case. The court instructed the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to consider other issues raised in the dispute. The case involves about 17,000 acres. The federal government has agreed to put most of the land into trust.

Source: High court dismisses Oneida foreclosure case.

See also The Utica Observer Dispatch: Supreme Court sends Oneidas foreclosure case back to lower court:

• The U.S. Supreme Court kicked the longstanding foreclosure lawsuit involving the Oneida Indian Nation back to a lower court Monday. In doing so, it decided not to rule on whether Indian tribes can block foreclosure cases using sovereign immunity.The court’s decision came after the Nation voluntarily waved its immunity. The counties have been seeking to foreclose on Oneida property for years, saying they hope the effort induces payment of property taxes from the 1990s.

• What the Supreme Court did do, however, was vacate a previous judgment barring Oneida and Madison counties from foreclosing on Oneida land.That means the 2nd U.S. District Court of Appeals will hear the case once again – but without the argument of sovereign immunity.(2)

For an earlier post on this story, see Federal Appeals Court Gives Indian Tribes The "Go-Ahead" To Buy Real Estate, Stiff Counties On Lawfully-Owed Property Taxes & Get Away With It.

(1) According to the Supreme Court (bold text is my emphasis, not in the original text):

• We granted certiorari, 562 U. S.___(2010), 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. O-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.
  
  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. ___ (2010) (per curiam).
  
  Petitioners are awarded costs in this Court pursuant to this Court’s Rule 43.2.

For the Federal appeals court ruling that was the subject of this appeal, see Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y. v. Madison County, 605 F.3d 149 (2d Cir. 2010).

(2) More from the Utica Observer Dispatch:

• Oneida County Executive Anthony Picente Jr. said his reaction to the situation is “mixed” because the county was hoping the Supreme Court would resolve the issue. Now there is no clear indication of how long it will take. “Legally, the decision’s a victory for us,” he said. “But practically it doesn’t feel like a victory because we expected to win the entire argument at Supreme Court.”
  
  Officials had speculated a Supreme Court ruling could have implications for Indian tribes across the country. In opposing letters to the Supreme Court, attorneys from both sides engaged in a sharp back-and-forth about the waiver.
  
  David Schraver, an attorney for the counties, said he is “unaware of any other case in which a party has aggressively litigated an issue for fully 10 years – including up to this court and back once more – and then attempted to moot the issue through purely unilateral action. …”
  
  But attorney Seth Waxman, who works for the Oneidas, said there is “no basis” for Schraver’s suggestion that the waiver was an attempt by the Nation to shield itself from an unfavorable ruling.