America's top Indian-fighting team was back at it again this month as the Supreme Court struck yet another blow against justice for Indian Country.
Twelve years after a federal district court ruled that the Cayuga Nation had its land illegally taken by the State of New York in the late 1700s, and six years after a jury awarded the Cayugas $37 million for that theft, the United States Supreme Court solidified a ruling that wiped out that award by refusing to hear an appeal by the Cayuga Nation.
The Supreme Court's decision to ignore the Cayuga Nation didn't stem from a factual flaw in the tribe's case. Instead, it stemmed from a court-made doctrine called "laches," whereby the court will refuse to hear a claim if a party waited too long to complain.
The Cayuga Nation originally brought its land claim in 1980. For a long time before that, tribes were effectively barred from bringing suits against the government. And where they were permitted, many tribes simply couldn't afford to press their cases.
That the Supreme Court said the Cayugas waited "too long" to bring their claim is kind of like locking a kid out of the bathroom and then getting mad when he pees in his pants.
Last year, the Supreme Court began using this doctrine of "laches" to turn aside valid land claims by tribes. Now, tribes throughout the United States face the prospect of watching as thefts of their lands go unrecompensed.
Normally, in a situation like this, I would resort to my comfort zone of blaming everything on Republicans. But that won't work this time.
The original Supreme Court opinion that allowed it to flippantly dismiss land claims by telling tribes that they waited "too long" to complain was crafted by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, one of the most liberal members of the court.
In New York, some of the most heated anti-Indian rhetoric has come from the state's liberal Attorney General, Elliot Spitzer - who has presidential ambitions - and liberal U.S. Senator Charles Schumer.
There is no refuge for justice when it comes to Indian tribes in the United States.
The Chief of the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe in New York, James Ransom, put it succinctly when he recently stated "[this] Supreme Court...has established itself as the most anti-Indian court in the history of the United States."
Our tribal leaders need to come up with proactive ways to combat this rising tide of injustice that threatens to swamp our sovereignty (if you think that sounds extreme, just look to the 1950s when Congress terminated the sovereignty of many tribes across the country).
As a first step, it is important for tribal nations to unite and coalesce around common positions, such as land claims, water rights, and core principles of sovereignty.
Second, it is also of growing import for tribal leaders to proactively engage their federal and state counterparts in the political arena, as federal courts continue to beat back against our legal positions.
And lastly, tribes must seriously consider a boycott of the Supreme Court to challenge the legitimacy of these recent decisions, which have been concocted out of thin air and conflict with existing law. At a minimum, tribes should begin a discussion with Congress to establish a new forum, with judges from Indian Country, in which disputes between tribes and the federal or state governments can be fairly heard.
The tide is turning against tribes in this country, and the time has come to demand action and vision on the part of our tribal leaders to counteract these injustices of the Supreme Court.
Bryan Newland is a Bay Mills Indian Community Member and a student at Michigan State University College of Law in East Lansing. He is the oldest son of Gordon and Vickie Newland of Bay Mills. He has written columns and letters that have appeared in local, regional, and national publications. He is the oldest son of Gordon and Vicki Newland of Bay Mills and is married to Erica Newland, with son, Graydon. You can respond to his column at 517-862-5570 or tikro6@yahoo.com.
