Menu
  • Home
  • Case Pages
    • 2024 – 2025 Term
      • September Session
      • October Session
      • November Session
      • January Session
    • 2023 – 2024 Term
      • September Session
      • October Session
      • November Session
      • January Session
      • February Session
      • March Session
      • April Session
      • May Session
    • 2022 – 2023 Term
      • September Session
      • October Session
      • November Session
      • January Session
      • February Session
      • March Session
      • April Session
      • May Session
    • 2021 – 2022 Term
      • September Session
      • October Session
      • November Session
      • January Session
      • February Session
      • March Session
      • April Session
      • May Session
    • 2020 – 2021 Term
      • September Session
      • October Session
      • November Session
      • January Session
      • February Session
      • March Session
      • April / May Session
    • 2019 – 2020 Term
      • September Session
      • October Session
      • November Session
      • January Session
      • February Session
      • March Session
      • April / May Session
      • June Session
    • Pending Cases
      • All Pending Cases
      • Fully Briefed
      • Not Fully Briefed
  • Roundups & Interviews
    • Experts Roundups
      • The Chief Judge Vacancy
      • Matter of Harkenrider v. Hochul
      • The Mortgage Acceleration Cases
      • Doe v. Bloomberg LP
      • CNH Diversified v. Cleveland Unlimited
    • News Roundups
    • Interviews
      • Hon. Leslie Stein (NYCA)
      • Hon. Eugene Fahey (NYCA)
  • NYCA Stats
    • 2023-2024 Term
    • 2022-2023 Term
    • 2021-2022 Term
    • 2021-2022 Midterm
    • 2020-2021 Term
    • 2019-2020 Term
    • 2018-2019 Term
  • Jurisdictional Letters
    • Finality
    • Constitutional Question
    • Dissents
    • Statute’s Validity
    • Stipulated Judgment
    • Necessarily Affects
    • Miscellaneous
      • Aggrieved Party
  • Resources
    • How An Appeal Gets To The New York Court of Appeals
    • Court Decisions
      • NYCA Decisions
      • Lower Court Decisions
      • Second Circuit Decisions
    • Legislative Resources
      • NY Statutes
      • NY Session Laws
      • NYCRR
      • NY Register
    • Research Resources
      • NY Bill Jackets
        • Bill Jackets (1995-present)
        • About older bill jackets.
      • NY Constitutional History
      • NYCA Briefs and Records
        • NYCA Briefs (2013-present)
        • About older NYCA briefs.
      • Other Primary Resources
        • NYLawz
        • NY State Library
        • Hein NY Legal Research Library (sub)
    • Practice Resources
      • NYCA Practice Rules
      • NYCA Civil Practice Outline
      • Certified Questions Handbook
      • NY Citation Rules
    • News and Commentary
      • NY Law Journal (sub)
      • NY Appellate Digest
      • NY Court Watcher
      • The CPLR Blog
      • NY Appeals
      • NY Focus
  • About Us
    • Who We Are
    • Contact Us
TwentyEagle

Case Summary – Cayuga Nation v. Campbell

Posted on 2019-02-092020-08-05

The question in this case is whether New York courts have jurisdiction to resolve a dispute between competing factions of the Cayuga Nation as to possession of certain tribal property.

In general, federal and state courts lack authority to resolve internal disputes about tribal law or governance. But the Secretary of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) within the U.S. Department of the Interior has authority to manage all “Indian” affairs and all matters arising out of “Indian” relations, including the authority to make recognition decisions regarding tribal leadership if the situation has deteriorated to the point that recognition of some government is essential for Federal purposes.

In 2016, the BIA resolved the competing claims of plaintiffs and defendants to leadership of the Cayuga Nation by recognizing plaintiffs as the Nation’s lawful governing body. Plaintiffs then instituted this action asserting various causes of action all seeking to recover tribal property that had been allegedly wrongly occupied by the defendants. Defendants moved to dismiss the action for lack of subject matter, arguing that resolving the action would require a court impermissibly to resolve the dispute about tribal governance.

Supreme Court denied defendants’ motion, and a divided Third Department affirmed. The majority held that there was no need to resolve the tribal dispute because the BIA had already done so; the court would simply defer to the BIA’s decision. In the dissenters’ view, resolution of plaintiffs’ claims would require determining the tribal leadership dispute and that the BIA had not already resolved that dispute.

The Fourth Department granted leave to appeal.

Return to the case page for Cayuga Nation v. Campbell.

By Phil on 2019-02-09.
Return to the case page.

©2025 TwentyEagle | WordPress Theme by Superbthemes.com