# Madison County v. Oneida Indian Nation of N. Y.

* information about this edition.
* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
Madison County v. Oneida Indian Nation of N. Y., 562 U.S. ___ (2011) involved the issue of whether tribal sovereign immunity barred local authorities from foreclosing to collect property taxes. After the tribe declared that it waived its immunity against the enforcement of property taxes, the Court vacated and remanded the case for the Second Circuit to consider the effect of this new development.
Warning: template has been deprecated.page 1, slip opinion
Cite as: 562 U.S. ____ (2011)
Per Curiam
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
MADISON COUNTY, NEW YORK ET AL. v. ONEIDA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
No. 10–72. Decided January 10, 2011
PER CURIAM.
We granted certiorari, 562 U.S.___(2010), on the questions "whether tribal sovereign immunity from suit, to the extent it should continue to be recognized, bars taxing authorities from foreclosing to collect lawfully imposed property taxes" and "whether the ancient Oneida reservation in New York was disestablished or diminished." Pet. for Cert. i. Counsel for respondent Oneida Indian Nation advised the Court through a letter on November 30, 2010, that the Nation had, on November 29, 2010, passed a tribal declaration and ordinance waiving "its sovereign immunity to enforcement of real property taxation through foreclosure by state, county and local governments within and throughout the United States." Oneida Indian Nation, Ordinance No. O-10–1 (2010). Petitioners Madison and Oneida Counties responded in a December 1, 2010 letter, questioning the validity, scope, and permanence of that waiver; the Nation addressed those concerns in a December 2, 2010 letter.
We vacate the judgment and remand the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. That court should address, in the first instance, whether to revisit its ruling on sovereign immunity in light of this new factual development, and—if necessary—proceed to address other questions in the case consistent with its sovereign immunity ruling. See Kiyemba v. Obama, 559 U.S. ___ (2010) (per curiam).
Petitioners are awarded costs in this Court pursuant to
Warning: template has been deprecated.page 2, slip opinion this Court's Rule 43.2.
It is so ordered.
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
| | The current edition of this document derives from the electronic version of the "slip opinion" posted online by the Supreme Court of the United States the day the decision was handed down. It is not the final or most authoritative version. It is subject to further revision by the Court and should be replaced with the final edition when it is published in a print volume of the United States Reports. The Court's full disclaimer regarding slip opinions follows: |
| The "slip" opinion is the second version of an opinion. It is sent to the printer later in the day on which the "bench" opinion is released by the Court. Each slip opinion has the same elements as the bench opinion—majority or plurality opinion, concurrences or dissents, and a prefatory syllabus—but may contain corrections not appearing in the bench opinion. Caution: These electronic opinions may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official printed slip opinion pamphlets. Moreover, a slip opinion is replaced within a few months by a paginated version of the case in the preliminary print, and—one year after the issuance of that print—by the final version of the case in a U. S. Reports bound volume. In case of discrepancies between the print and electronic versions of a slip opinion, the print version controls. In case of discrepancies between the slip opinion and any later official version of the opinion, the later version controls. (source: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinions.aspx) ||
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse