## Facts

- The Oneida Indian Nation’s successors alleged that a 1795 conveyance of Oneida lands to the State of New York violated the federal Nonintercourse Act of 1793 because it lacked required federal approval.
- The Counties of Oneida and Madison, New York occupied part of the disputed land and were sued for wrongful possession.
- The tribal plaintiffs sought money damages equal to the fair rental value of a portion of the land for a two-year period (1968–1970), rather than ejectment.
- The federal district court found the counties liable for wrongful possession, awarded damages, and ordered New York to indemnify the counties on a third-party claim.
- The court of appeals affirmed liability and indemnification but remanded for recalculation of damages.
- The Supreme Court reviewed both the counties’ challenge to liability and the State’s challenge to the indemnification judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether Indian tribes have a federal common-law cause of action to vindicate federal possessory rights in aboriginal lands independent of, and not displaced by, the Nonintercourse Act.
2. Whether the tribes’ claim was defeated by defenses such as statutes of limitations, abatement/extinguishment theories based on delay or governmental inaction, implicit federal ratification, laches, or nonjusticiability.
3. Whether the Eleventh Amendment bars a federal court from exercising ancillary jurisdiction over counties’ indemnity cross-claims against a nonconsenting state.

## Decision

- The Court held that tribes possess a federal common-law cause of action to enforce aboriginal possessory rights, and that this cause of action is not preempted by the Nonintercourse Act.
- The Court rejected defenses premised on limitations periods, abatement/extinguishment by inaction, implicit federal ratification, and political-question/nonjusticiability theories as grounds to bar the tribes’ damages claim.
- The Court held that the Eleventh Amendment prevents federal courts from adjudicating the counties’ indemnity claims against New York under ancillary jurisdiction absent the State’s consent or valid congressional abrogation.
- The Court affirmed the counties’ liability to the tribes for damages but reversed the indemnification judgment against New York and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its rulings.

## Legal Principles

- Tribal claims to enforce aboriginal possessory rights arise under federal law and may be pursued via a federal common-law cause of action even without a treaty or statute creating the specific remedy.
- A federal statute displaces federal common law only when it speaks directly to the issue otherwise governed by common law; the Nonintercourse Act’s validity rule for conveyances did not supply an exclusive remedial scheme.
- State statutes of limitations generally cannot be borrowed to cut off federal tribal land rights where doing so conflicts with federal policy protecting those rights.
- Extinguishment of aboriginal title is a federal governmental prerogative requiring clear action; federal inaction does not amount to implicit ratification of a conveyance invalid under federal law.
- Claims seeking damages for unlawful dispossession are justiciable in federal court notwithstanding governmental or practical consequences.
- Ancillary jurisdiction cannot be used to impose liability on a nonconsenting state; the Eleventh Amendment bars indemnity cross-claims against a state absent consent or valid congressional abrogation.

## Conclusion

The Court sustained the Oneidas’ federal common-law damages claim for wrongful possession arising from an unauthorized 1795 conveyance, rejected asserted time-based and prudential bars to that claim, and held that New York could not be compelled to indemnify the counties in federal court because sovereign immunity foreclosed ancillary jurisdiction over the indemnity claims.


County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y. State, 470 U.S. 226 (1985)