New York’s Highest Court Reaffirms Tribal Sovereignty in Internal Leadership Dispute
Benjamin Apfel, CLS ’21
On October 29, NY’s Court of Appeals ruled that it lacks jurisdiction to resolve the longstanding internal dispute over leadership of the Cayuga Nation (“The Nation”), reversing the decision of the lower court.[1]
The Cayuga Nation owns and occupies land in Western New York State, including the properties subject to the instant litigation.[2] As a result of several treaties entered into with the Federal Government towards the end of the 18th century, the Nation retained its right to sovereignty over its internal affairs.[3] The Nation is instructed by the Great Law of Peace, which governs the procedures by which The Nation’s clan mothers approve or remove members of The Nation Council (the “Council”), which is the governing body of The Nation.[4]
The fifteen-year old dispute emerged as a result of the fragmentation of The Nation Council, when certain Council members, including William Jacobs, founder of Defendant “Jacobs Council”, claimed that other Council members, including Clint Halftown, founder of Plaintiff “Halftown Council”, had been removed from their positions of authority under Cayuga Law.[5]
After a decade of internal discord and attempted “takeovers”[6] of The Nation Council, in July 2017, the Halftown Council commenced action against the Jacobs Council, alleging trespass and theft of The Nation’s property and seeking damages and injunctive relief.[7]
The lower court acknowledged that, though New York Courts generally “lack the ability to resolve an intra-tribal leadership dispute,” the Bureau of Indian Affairs’ (“BIA”) tacit recognition of the Halftown Council for federal aid purposes relieves the courts from having to resolve that question.[8] The Court of Appeals disagreed, adopting the paradoxical conclusion that BIA’s limited recognition confers standing on the Halftown Council to sue on behalf of the Nation,[9] but does not resolve the “disputed issues of tribal law implicated by the merits of this action.”[10]
The Court explained that because the litigation regards property owned by The Nation, and the Halftown Council had commenced the lawsuit on behalf of The Nation, the question before the court turns entirely on which faction rightfully speaks on behalf of The Nation.[11] The Court castigated the Dissent for contending that The Nation’s lack of a conventional system of legal adjudication “disadvantages” The Nation, and leaves it “entirely without recourse.”[12] Describing this view as “paternalistic,” the Court reasoned that The Nation’s alternative dispute mechanisms are wholly expressive of their recognized right to sovereignty in their internal affairs.[13]
The Court concluded its argument by stating that “there is no federal or state precedent that would permit the Halftown Council to use a determination regarding federal funding as a sword against its competing leadership faction in order to have New York courts end a persistent fifteen-year-old internal dispute regarding tribal governance which is implicated by the claims presented here.”[14]
While Joseph Heath, attorney for the Jacobs Council, noted that the Court’s recognition of the Great Law of Peace was an “important legal win for traditional nations in general[,]”[15] the Court’s dissenters lamented that the majority’s decision “slam[s] the courthouse doors in the face of the Cayuga Nation…even though it has no other forum to which it can turn.”[16] This deeply divided decision serves as a microcosm for the difficulties US courts face in finding a balance between respecting Native Americans sovereignty and providing those who seek recourse in the US court system accessible avenues of legal relief.
[1] Josh Russell, Top NY Court Won’t Weigh in on Tribe Leadership Fight, Courthouse News (Oct. 29, 2019), https://www.courthousenews.com/top-ny-court-wont-weigh-in-on-tribe-leadership-fight/.
[2] Cayuga Nation v. Campbell, 2019 N.Y. LEXIS 3053, 2019 NY Slip Op 07711, 2019 WL 5549801 (Oct. 29, 2019).
[3] Id. at *1.
[4] Id.
[5] Id. at *2–3.
[6] Id. at *8.
[7] Id. at *5.
[8] Id. at *10.
[9] See id. at *36 (J. Wilson, dissenting) (“The oddest inconsistency in the majority’s position is that it assumes the Halftown Group is the proper party to sue on behalf of the Cayuga Nation, yet although the Nation is suing—necessarily to dispossess persons who are not the Nation—the majority refuses to permit the Nation the right to avail itself of the courts to regain its property.”)
[10] Id. at *11.
[11] Id.
[12] Id. at *18–9.
[13] Id.
[14] Id. at *22.
[15] Ryan Franklyn, Appeals court leaves internal leadership question up to the Cayuga Nation, Auburn Pub (Oct. 31, 2019), https://auburnpub.com/news/local/appeals-court-leaves-internal-leadership-question-up-to-the-cayuga/article_7b602eb5-2e73-58ea-95b2-c90300cc50f6.html.
[16] Cayuga Nation v. Campbell, 2019 N.Y. LEXIS 3053, 2019 NY Slip Op 07711, 2019 WL 5549801 (Oct. 29, 2019).