Jackson v. Smith, 9 N.Y.3d 47 (2007)

New York Indian Law § 8 defines an “intruder” as a non-member of a tribe who settles or resides on tribal lands, and the determination of who qualifies as an intruder rests primarily with the tribe, not the courts, to protect tribal sovereignty.

Summary

This case concerns the interpretation of New York Indian Law § 8, which addresses intrusions on tribal lands. The Unkechaug Indian Nation sought to remove Tina Jackson, a non-member, from tribal land. The County Court denied the petition, asserting the right to independently determine whether Jackson was an intruder. The New York Court of Appeals reversed, holding that under § 8, an intruder is a non-member residing on tribal lands, and the tribe has primary authority to determine membership and residency rights, thus safeguarding tribal sovereignty.

Facts

George Jackson, a member of the Unkechaug Indian Nation, received an allotment of land. He moved onto the land with his wife, Tina Jackson, a non-member, in 1985. They lived there until 1988, then moved off the reservation for 14 years before returning in 2002. In 2004, Tina obtained an order of protection against George, and he moved out. George then transferred his interest in the allotment to his brother, Glenn, who sought Tina’s removal from the property. The Tribal Council authorized the District Attorney to initiate removal proceedings after Tina refused to leave.

Procedural History

The County Court denied the petition to remove Tina Jackson, concluding that courts must independently determine who is an intruder. The Appellate Division affirmed. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division, granting the petition and declaring Tina Jackson an intruder.

Issue(s)

Whether Indian Law § 8 grants a County Court the discretion to determine, independent of the Indian nation, whether a person is an “intruder” upon tribal land.

Holding

No, because Indian Law § 8 defines an intruder as a non-member of the tribe residing on tribal lands, and the determination of membership and residency rights lies primarily with the tribe to protect tribal sovereignty.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals reasoned that Indian Law § 8 must be interpreted in the context of the statute itself and with consideration for tribal sovereignty. The court stated that an “intruder” is defined within the statute as a person not a member of the tribe who resides on tribal lands. The court emphasized that the tribe has the inherent right to determine its own membership and to exclude non-members from its lands. Allowing the County Court to independently determine who is an intruder would undermine the tribe’s sovereignty and its right to self-government. The court distinguished Matter of Stakel [Blueye], noting it had not adopted that court’s reasoning. It agreed with Fischer (Checkman), stating: “Who is an ‘intruder’ in the sense of the special statutory use of that word in this section is not left to rest on mere general meaning. It is given a contextual definition.” The court emphasized that the statute’s language, prohibiting non-members from residing on tribal lands, makes clear the legislative intent. The Court found that tribal customs and laws are essential to determining a nonmember’s status as an intruder, quoting Matter of Patterson v Seneca Nation: “[U]nless the last vestige of separate national life has been withdrawn from the Indian tribes by encroaching State legislation; then, surely, it must follow that the Seneca Nation of Indians has retained for itself that prerequisite to their self-preservation and integrity as a nation, the right to determine by whom its membership shall be constituted.” Therefore, because Tina Jackson was a non-member residing on the reservation, the tribe’s determination that she was an intruder should have been upheld.