ALBANY, N.Y. – A federal court has dismissed the Onondaga Nation’s land rights lawsuit in a ruling that follows recent precedent-setting cases depriving other Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) Confederacy nations of their lands.

Onondaga filed its action in March 2005 on behalf of itself and the Haudenosaunee against New York State, Onondaga County, the City of Syracuse and five corporations, including Honeywell International.

The nation sought a declaratory judgment that various lands situated in present-day Central New York were unlawfully acquired by the State of New York in violation of the federal Indian Trade and Intercourse Act, the U.S. Constitution, the 1784 Treaty of Fort Stanwix and the 1794 Treaty of Canandaigua.

In his Sept. 22 decision, U.S. District Judge Lawrence Kahn said the “profoundly disruptive nature” of the nation’s claims – meaning disruptive to those who are currently occupying and benefitting from the developed land – “fails to state a claim for which relief may be granted.”

Onondaga attorney Joe Heath said it was a “sad day.”

“What this shows is that there’s no justice for Indian nations on land claims and no way to enforce treaty rights in our courts. There is no way you can read this decision and still think that treaties are ‘the supreme law of the land.’”

Heath said the lawsuit was “the most non-disruptive lawsuit that anybody could conjure up,” pointing to its opening paragraph.

“The Onondaga people wish to bring about a healing between themselves and all others who live in this region that has been the homeland of the Onondaga Nation since the dawn of time,” the lawsuit begins.

“The Nation and its people have a unique spiritual, cultural and historic relationship with the land, which is embodied in the Gayanashagowa, the Great Law of Peace. This relationship goes far beyond federal and state legal concepts of ownership, possession or legal rights. The people are one with the land, and consider themselves stewards of it. It is the duty of the nation’s leaders to work for a healing of this land, to protect it, and to pass it on to future generations. The Onondaga Nation brings this action on behalf of its people in the hope that it may hasten the process of reconciliation and bring lasting justice, peace and respect among all who inhabit the area.”

Neighbors of the Onondaga Nation held a vigil the night the ruling was issued.

“The activities of NOON and events organized by educational institutions in our area prove that Judge Kahn is wrong,” said Philip Arnold, associate professor of indigenous religions at Syracuse University. “We have all been attracted to this because the Onondaga Nation has brought this action on behalf of the land and not just to receive property taken illegally. This action will not be disruptive to ‘settler people’ but instead is welcomed change that has helped us reimage our relationship with indigenous peoples and the earth.”

Heath said the way Kahn wrote his decision “showed clearly that he was not pleased he had to do it,” but was compelled by previous rulings.

Kahn detailed the “mandatory basis” for his decision that was set by the U.S. Supreme Court in its controversial 2005 ruling in City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York.

In Sherrill, the Oneida Indian Nation claimed it was exempt from paying taxes on historic reservation land it had reacquired through purchase.

In an 8-1 decision the justices invoked the Doctrine of Laches – the idea that the nation had waited too long to claim the land.

The “standards of federal Indian law and federal equity practice precluded the tribe from rekindling embers of sovereignty that long ago grew cold,” the justices wrote.

Sherrill also used an “equitable considerations” argument – a set of legal principles prohibiting people from asserting their legal rights if it would be “unconscionable” for them to do so – meaning, in this case, that the Oneida claim would be too “disruptive” of the people now living on the stolen Indian land.

Perhaps most provocative was the justices’ use of the discredited Christian Doctrine of Discovery – the 15th century European Christian claim that the first nation to “discover” land that was not populated by Christians could enslave or kill the non-Christian inhabitants and take their land and resources.

“Under the doctrine of discovery. … fee title to the lands occupied by Indians when the colonists arrived became vested in the sovereign – first the discovering European nation and later the original states and the United States,” the justices wrote in a footnote.

A few months later the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a Cayuga Indian Nation land rights lawsuit based on the Sherrill decision.

And in August, the 2nd Circuit, ruling in the Oneida case, abandoned all arguments involving laches and discovery said the nation cannot reclaim their illegally taken ancestral lands or receive compensation for their loss, because it would be too disruptive to those who are currently occupying and benefitting from the land.

These decisions clearly violate the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Heath said.

Article 37 asserts indigenous peoples’ right to “the recognition, observance and enforcement of treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements concluded with states or their successors and to have states honor and respect such treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements.”

Article 40 asserts indigenous peoples’ right to “prompt decisions through just and fair procedures for the resolution of conflicts and disputes with states or other parties, as well as to effective remedies for all infringements of their individual and collective rights.”

The Onondaga Nation will take its case to the international arena but must first exhaust all legal remedies here, Heath said.

“But Onondaga will not stop talking about the loss of their land. They’ll keep working with their neighbors in a healing and cooperative way to try to get their land back,” Heath said. “Maybe the legal system will catch up. This is not the end.”

Editor’s note: Indian Country Today is a division of Four Directions Media, which is owned by Oneida Nation Enterprises, LLC.