Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Seneca Nation of Indians v. New York

Seneca Nation of Indians v. N.Y., 178 F.3d 95 (2d Cir. 1999)

Type: Opinion
Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: Federal
Date: 1999-05-17
Topic: bankruptcy

PER CURIAM: We affirm the orders of the district court denying the State of New York’s Eleventh Amendment defenses for substantially the reasons stated by Judge Curtin in the decision below. See Seneca Nation of Indians v. State of New York, 26 F.Supp.2d 555, 563-65 (W.D.N.Y.1998). In doing so, we note that the, State of New York retains its Eleventh Amendment immunity to the extent, that the Seneca Nation of Indians or the Tonawanda Band of Seneca Indians raise claims or issues that are not identical to those made by the United States. See Arizona v.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Seneca Nation of Indians v. New York. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Authority status: pending
Cited by: 14 opinions

SENECA NATION OF INDIANS v. NEW YORK,178 F.3d 95(2nd Cir. 1999)

SENECA NATION OF INDIANS, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, UNITED

STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR-APPELLEE, v.

STATE OF NEW YORK; GEORGE E. PATAKI, AS GOVERNOR;

JOSEPH SEYMOUR, AS COMMISSIONER OF THE OFFICE OF

GENERAL SERVICES; AND BERNADETTE CASTRO, AS

COMMISSIONER OF PARKS, RECREATION AND HISTORIC

PRESERVATION, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS,

Page 96

FREDERICK W. TAPP, JANE E. SCHUCK, KENT SANDFORD, RICHARD J.

McCUTCHEON, BEVERLY A. McCUTCHEON, ALBERT A. HOFFMAN,

LUCY HOFFMAN, MYLES BARRACLOUGH, SANDRA BARRACLOUGH,

DUANE G. GLOVER, PAUL H. GEER, VIRGINIA M. GEER, SCOTT

E. FISHER, ROSEMARY N. FISHER, WILLIAM E. CAMPBELL,

DAVID J. GIBSON, CLARENCE J. COFFMAN, JR., C. JAMES

COFFMAN, SR., JEAN COFFMAN, EILEEN W. GARLING, ROBERT

F. VAN DER HORST, SUSAN F. VAN DER HORST, JOSEPH

CHIAPUSO, SUSAN CHIAPUSO, HOWARD B. WHITNEY ESTATE,

DEBORAH BALDWIN, ROBERT L. JONES, EUGENIA JONES,

STEPHEN M. KANE, CLARENCE J. COFFMAN, SR., HOWARD L.

LUZIER, FLORENCE LUZIER, WALTER L. WHITNEY, EXECUTOR,

LOUISE HICKEY, PHILLIP CONFER, SHIRLEY CONFER, DAVID

C. WILLIAMS, AND FRANCES E. WILLIAMS, DEFENDANTS.

SENECA NATION OF INDIANS, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, TONAWANDA

BAND OF SENECA INDIANS, PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR-APPELLEE,

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ON ITS OWN BEHALF, AND FOR THE

BENEFIT OF THE SENECA NATION OF INDIANS AND THE TONAWANDA

BAND OF SENECA INDIANS, PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR-APPELLEE, v.

STATE OF NEW YORK, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS A REPRESENTATIVE

CLASS OF LANDOWNERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT,

THE NEW YORK STATE THRUWAY AUTHORITY; ERIE COUNTY; MOORE

BUSINESS FORMS, INC., INDIVIDUALLY AND AS A REPRESENTATIVE

OF A CLASS OF LANDOWNERS SIMILARLY SITUATED; INDUCOM, INC.,

INDIVIDUALLY AND AS A REPRESENTATIVE CLASS OF LANDOWNERS

SIMILARLY SITUATED; RADO-O-MART, INC., INDIVIDUALLY AND AS

A REPRESENTATIVE CLASS OF LANDOWNERS SIMILARLY SITUATED;

ILONA H. LANG, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS A REPRESENTATIVE CLASS

OF LANDOWNERS SIMILARLY SITUATED; ROBERT W. WEAVER,

INDIVIDUALLY AND AS A REPRESENTATIVE CLASS OF LANDOWNERS

SIMILARLY SITUATED; FRANCIS B. PRITCHARD, DEFENDANTS,

GEORGE E. PATAKI, BERNADETTE CASTRO, RONALD W. COAN, JOHN

CAHILL, JOSEPH BOARDMAN, JOHN R. PLATT, INTERVENORS-DEFENDANTS.

Nos. 99-6003, 99-6005.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Argued: April 26, 1999.

Decided: May 17, 1999.

Appeal from an order denying defendants-appellants' motion for summary judgment (John T. Curtin, Judge) and from an order denying their motion to dismiss (Richard J. Arcara, Judge) on the ground that the claims of the Seneca Nation of Indians and the Tonawanda Band of Seneca Indians are not barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Because the United States has been granted permission to intervene and the tribes' complaints seek the same relief as the United States's complaint, the Eleventh Amendment does not bar the tribes' claims. We therefore affirm.

ANDREW D. BING, Assistant Attorney General (Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General of the State of New York; Peter H. Schiff, Acting Solicitor General; Nancy A. Spiegel, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel),Page 97Albany, New York, for Defendants-Appellants.

JEANNE S. WHITEING, Whiteing Smith (Robert P. Isaac, Jr., Deputy Attorney General, Seneca Nation Department of Justice, Salamanca, New York; Arlinda F. Locklear, Jefferson, Maryland, of counsel), Boulder, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

SAMUEL C. ALEXANDER, Attorney, Environment Natural Resources Division, U.S. Department of Justice (Lois J. Schiffer, Assistant Attorney General, Environment Natural Resources Division, United States Department of Justice; David C. Shilton, Attorney, of counsel), Washington, D.C., for Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellee United States of America.

Steven M. Tullberg, Indian Law Resource Center (June L. Lorenzo and Alexandra Page, of counsel), Washington, D.C., for Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellee Tonawanda Band of Seneca Indians.

BEFORE: WINTER, Chief Judge, MINER, and POOLER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

[1] We affirm the orders of the district court denying the State of New York's Eleventh Amendment defenses for substantially the reasons stated by Judge Curtin in the decision below.SeeSeneca Nation of Indians v. State of New York, 26 F. Supp.2d 555, 563-65 (W.D.N.Y. 1998). In doing so, we note that the State of New York retains its Eleventh Amendment immunity to the extent that the Seneca Nation of Indians or the Tonawanda Band of Seneca Indians raise claims or issues that are not identical to those made by the United States.See Arizona v. California,460 U.S. 605, 614 (1983) (holding that granting tribes leave to intervene in suit commenced by United States against states does not violate Eleventh Amendment because "[t]he Tribes do not seek to bring new claims or issues against the states").