301:
acquire them." During the hearings it was stated that Power
Authority would need about 1,000 acres (4.0 km) of land from a roughly 4,000-acre (16 km) parcel of land. The land in question was not part of the actual reservation as mandated by treaty, but purchased by the Tuscarora with assistance from the Secretary of War. After the hearings the FPC issued the license and found that the land in question was almost completely undeveloped. On May 5, 1958, the FPC issued its order approving the licensee's revised exhibit, which precisely delineated the location, area, and acreage to be embraced by the reservoir, which included 1,383 acres (5.60 km) of the Tuscaroras' lands. On May 16, 1958, the Tuscarora filed a petition at the
378:
Power Act, the mere 'expressed consent' of
Congress would be vain and idle. For s 177 at the very least contemplates the assent of the Indian nation or tribe. And inasmuch as the Tuscarora Indian Nation withholds such consent and refuses to convey to the licensee any of its lands, it follows that the mere consent of Congress, however express and specific, would avail nothing. Therefore, if s 177 is applicable to alienations effected by condemnation under s 21 of the Federal Power Act, the result would be that the Tuscarora lands, however imperative for the project, could not be taken at all.
314:
Court of
Appeals found that the land in question was indeed part of the Indian Reservation and could not be used and remanded the FPC. The Federal Power Act defined reservations as: "national forests, tribal lands embraced within Indian reservations, military reservations, and other lands and interests in lands owned by the United States, and withdrawn, reserved, or withheld from private appropriation and disposal under the public land laws; also lands and interests in lands acquired and held for any public purpose; but shall not include national monuments or national parks."
617:
31:
349:
wrote a dissent. He argued that the definition of reservation was trivial and should not have been analyzed by the court. In his dissent Black wrote of a string of injustices by the United States
Government and violations of treaties. He added that this ruling was another broken promise. He finished
313:
The
Tuscarora Indian Nation contended that seizure of their lands was a violation under the Federal Power Act. Section 4 of the act declared that reservation land may not be acquired when it would "interfere or be inconsistent with the purpose for which such reservation was created or acquired." The
334:
wrote the opinion for the Court. The question as presented by
Whittaker was "... may be taken for the storage reservoir of a hydroelectric power project, upon the payment of just compensation ...". The court did not argue whether the land was part of the Tuscarora Reservation but whether it was a
377:
As to the
Tuscaroras' contention that prohibits the taking of any of their lands for the reservoir 'without the express and specific consent of Congress,' one thing is certain. It is certain that if s 177 is applicable to alienations effected by condemnation proceedings under s 21 of the Federal
317:
Upon this decision the
Commission held more hearings, studying both the court's decision and exploring other locations for the reservoir. However the Commission found that other sites would cause significant delay to the project, cause unwanted community disruption, unreasonable expense and would
300:
In light of its new authority via an Act of
Congress the Power Authority began its hearing process and notified all interested parties, including the Tuscarora Indian Nation. In the hearing the Tuscarora objected to the Power Authority's plan and stated that "the applicant lacks the authority to
292:
The treaty limited the use of water during the nights and weekends. In order to overcome these times where water would not be as readily available all the plans submitted called for a reservoir to be built that could feed the power plant during these off times. However squabbling in
Congress on
297:, creating a critical shortage of power in the Mid-Atlantic Region. Faced with this crisis Congress authorized the FPC to issue the Power Authority of New York a license to implement a plan that would utilize all available power that the 1950 treaty afforded the United States.
318:
reduce the capacity of the reservoir. This would lead to a violation of Public Law 85-159, which mandated that the commission use all of the possible energy that could be extracted from the falls. The Commission then appealed to the Supreme Court.
273:
in order to properly split the use of an obviously huge natural resource. When approving the treaty, the Senate entered into force a provision that stated that no development of the areas was to occur without an
998:
302:
562:
1053:
338:
The court found that for the purposes of the law, a reservation was any land owned by the Federal Government of the United States. This would thus exclude Indian Reservations from its definition.
840:
930:
1058:
1005:
494:
423:
72:
883:
824:
555:
386:
282:
reported to the Congress about the most feasible plans to use all of the waters afforded to it by the 1950 treaty. Also other studies were submitted to the Congress by the
586:
778:
548:
848:
935:
606:
1033:
915:
406:
case ... gave me my first real understanding of how the Nonintercourse Act worked and how it might be used to press the Oneida claim." Explaining the
867:
287:
1048:
993:
1038:
950:
705:
394:
as the "key that helped me see the legal issues in the correct perspective." In his report to his firm, persuading them to take the case on a
1063:
571:
364:
279:
797:
293:
whether the development should be public or private had delayed plans for several years. But on June 7, 1956, a rock slide destroyed the
905:
770:
734:
594:
35:
1043:
751:
157:
402:
case we might have backed away for one or more of the above reasons." Shattuck notes that, "ronically, the state's brief in the
940:
910:
677:
925:
683:
945:
264:
232:
616:
920:
722:
600:
832:
986:
665:
294:
671:
283:
236:
107:
955:
331:
169:
523:
373:
did not bar condemnation under the Federal Power Act, it laid down an expansive interpretation of the Act:
1010:
976:
875:
240:
165:
743:
498:
64:
505:
714:
631:
252:
398:
basis, Shattuck repeated several arguments against Indian land claims and concluded: "Before the
1068:
660:
643:
637:
370:
145:
110:
did indeed have the right to seize land from the Tuscarora Indian Tribe with just compensation.
248:
141:
981:
960:
395:
275:
540:
244:
177:
514:
1027:
270:
655:
153:
67:
125:
346:
133:
649:
79:
269:
In 1950 the United States and Canada entered into treaty in respect to the
532:
96:
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
194:
Whittaker, joined by Warren, Frankfurter, Clark, Harlan, Stewart
544:
450:
Shattuck, The Oneida land claims: a legal history (1991), p. 7.
30:
380:
But s 177 is not applicable to the sovereign United States ...
841:
County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York State
410:
holding, Shattuck states that "he prophesy of the 1960
354:
Great nations, like great men, should keep their word.
1054:
United States Supreme Court cases of the Warren Court
424:
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 362
884:
City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York
825:
Oneida Indian Nation of New York v. County of Oneida
969:
898:
859:
816:
806:
Federal Power Commission v. Tuscarora Indian Nation
789:
762:
733:
704:
697:
624:
585:
578:
491:
Federal Power Commission v. Tuscarora Indian Nation
384:George C. Shattuck, who successfully litigated the
228:
Federal Power Commission v. Tuscarora Indian Nation
214:
206:
198:
190:
185:
114:
100:
92:
87:
59:
54:
Federal Power Commission v. Tuscarora Indian Nation
49:
42:
24:
Federal Power Commission v. Tuscarora Indian Nation
23:
335:reservation as defined in the Federal Power Act.
231:, 362 U.S. 99 (1960), was a case decided by the
390:(1974) decision more than a decade later cited
1059:Aboriginal title case law in the United States
779:United States v. Santa Fe Pacific Railroad Co.
556:
303:Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
8:
255:project, upon payment of just compensation.
607:Confederation Congress Proclamation of 1783
701:
582:
563:
549:
541:
239:was authorized to take lands owned by the
20:
640:(1790, 1793, 1796, 1799, 1802, and 1834)
359:Interpretation of the Nonintercourse Act
1006:Federal recognition of Native Hawaiians
994:Tribal sovereignty in the United States
434:
849:South Carolina v. Catawba Indian Tribe
868:Idaho v. Coeur d'Alene Tribe of Idaho
572:Aboriginal title in the United States
365:Aboriginal title in the United States
18:1960 United States Supreme Court case
7:
798:Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States
999:List of federally recognized tribes
771:Seneca Nation of Indians v. Christy
595:Charter of Freedoms and Exemptions
369:Although the Court found that the
36:Supreme Court of the United States
14:
1034:United States Supreme Court cases
752:New York ex rel. Cutler v. Dibble
615:
501:99 (1960) is available from:
29:
1049:1960 in United States case law
678:Indian Land Claims Settlements
414:case became reality in 1974."
1:
1039:United States energy case law
684:Indian Claims Limitations Act
1064:Aboriginal title in New York
833:Wilson v. Omaha Indian Tribe
672:Indian Claims Commission Act
288:Power Authority of New York.
265:Aboriginal title in New York
233:United States Supreme Court
1085:
723:Cherokee Nation v. Georgia
601:Royal Proclamation of 1763
533:Oyez (oral argument audio)
362:
262:
613:
295:Schoellkopf Power Station
235:that determined that the
219:
119:
105:
28:
1044:Federal Power Commission
284:Federal Power Commission
237:Federal Power Commission
210:Black, joined by Douglas
108:Federal Power Commission
603:(British North America)
280:Army Corps of Engineers
43:Argued December 7, 1959
1011:Legal status of Hawaii
977:Indigenous land rights
876:Idaho v. United States
382:
356:
278:. Because of this the
241:Tuscarora Indian tribe
166:William J. Brennan Jr.
744:Fellows v. Blacksmith
597:(1629 New Netherland)
375:
363:Further information:
352:
263:Further information:
45:Decided March 7, 1960
441:362 U.S. at 119--20.
170:Charles E. Whittaker
715:Johnson v. McIntosh
632:Northwest Ordinance
524:Library of Congress
253:hydroelectric power
666:Reorganization Act
661:Curtis Act of 1898
638:Nonintercourse Act
371:Nonintercourse Act
146:William O. Douglas
130:Associate Justices
1021:
1020:
894:
893:
693:
692:
332:Justice Whittaker
249:Federal Power Act
224:
223:
220:Federal Power Act
158:John M. Harlan II
142:Felix Frankfurter
78:80 S. Ct. 543; 4
1076:
982:Aboriginal title
702:
619:
583:
565:
558:
551:
542:
537:
531:
528:
522:
519:
513:
510:
504:
478:
477:Shattuck, p. 31.
475:
469:
468:Shattuck, p. 21.
466:
460:
457:
451:
448:
442:
439:
115:Court membership
33:
32:
21:
1084:
1083:
1079:
1078:
1077:
1075:
1074:
1073:
1024:
1023:
1022:
1017:
965:
890:
860:Rehnquist Court
855:
812:
785:
763:1890—1950
758:
729:
689:
620:
611:
574:
569:
535:
529:
526:
520:
517:
511:
508:
502:
486:
481:
476:
472:
467:
463:
459:Shattuck, p. 8.
458:
454:
449:
445:
440:
436:
432:
420:
396:contingency fee
379:
367:
361:
344:
329:
324:
311:
276:Act of Congress
267:
261:
168:
156:
144:
83:
44:
38:
19:
12:
11:
5:
1082:
1080:
1072:
1071:
1066:
1061:
1056:
1051:
1046:
1041:
1036:
1026:
1025:
1019:
1018:
1016:
1015:
1014:
1013:
1003:
1002:
1001:
991:
990:
989:
979:
973:
971:
967:
966:
964:
963:
958:
953:
948:
943:
938:
933:
928:
923:
918:
913:
908:
902:
900:
896:
895:
892:
891:
889:
888:
880:
872:
863:
861:
857:
856:
854:
853:
845:
837:
829:
820:
818:
814:
813:
811:
810:
802:
793:
791:
787:
786:
784:
783:
775:
766:
764:
760:
759:
757:
756:
748:
739:
737:
731:
730:
728:
727:
719:
710:
708:
706:Marshall Court
699:
695:
694:
691:
690:
688:
687:
681:
675:
669:
663:
658:
653:
647:
641:
635:
628:
626:
622:
621:
614:
612:
610:
609:
604:
598:
591:
589:
580:
576:
575:
570:
568:
567:
560:
553:
545:
539:
538:
506:Google Scholar
485:
484:External links
482:
480:
479:
470:
461:
452:
443:
433:
431:
428:
427:
426:
419:
416:
360:
357:
343:
340:
328:
325:
323:
320:
310:
309:District Court
307:
260:
257:
245:eminent domain
222:
221:
217:
216:
212:
211:
208:
204:
203:
200:
196:
195:
192:
188:
187:
183:
182:
181:
180:
178:Potter Stewart
131:
128:
123:
117:
116:
112:
111:
103:
102:
98:
97:
94:
90:
89:
85:
84:
77:
61:
57:
56:
51:
50:Full case name
47:
46:
40:
39:
34:
26:
25:
17:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1081:
1070:
1067:
1065:
1062:
1060:
1057:
1055:
1052:
1050:
1047:
1045:
1042:
1040:
1037:
1035:
1032:
1031:
1029:
1012:
1009:
1008:
1007:
1004:
1000:
997:
996:
995:
992:
988:
985:
984:
983:
980:
978:
975:
974:
972:
968:
962:
959:
957:
954:
952:
949:
947:
944:
942:
939:
937:
934:
932:
929:
927:
924:
922:
919:
917:
914:
912:
909:
907:
904:
903:
901:
897:
886:
885:
881:
878:
877:
873:
870:
869:
865:
864:
862:
858:
851:
850:
846:
843:
842:
838:
835:
834:
830:
827:
826:
822:
821:
819:
815:
808:
807:
803:
800:
799:
795:
794:
792:
788:
781:
780:
776:
773:
772:
768:
767:
765:
761:
754:
753:
749:
746:
745:
741:
740:
738:
736:
732:
725:
724:
720:
717:
716:
712:
711:
709:
707:
703:
700:
696:
685:
682:
679:
676:
673:
670:
667:
664:
662:
659:
657:
654:
651:
648:
645:
642:
639:
636:
633:
630:
629:
627:
625:United States
623:
618:
608:
605:
602:
599:
596:
593:
592:
590:
588:
584:
581:
577:
573:
566:
561:
559:
554:
552:
547:
546:
543:
534:
525:
516:
507:
500:
496:
492:
488:
487:
483:
474:
471:
465:
462:
456:
453:
447:
444:
438:
435:
429:
425:
422:
421:
417:
415:
413:
409:
405:
401:
397:
393:
389:
388:
381:
374:
372:
366:
358:
355:
351:
348:
347:Justice Black
341:
339:
336:
333:
326:
321:
319:
315:
308:
306:
304:
298:
296:
290:
289:
285:
281:
277:
272:
271:Niagara Falls
266:
258:
256:
254:
250:
246:
242:
238:
234:
230:
229:
218:
213:
209:
205:
201:
197:
193:
189:
186:Case opinions
184:
179:
175:
171:
167:
163:
159:
155:
151:
147:
143:
139:
135:
132:
129:
127:
124:
122:Chief Justice
121:
120:
118:
113:
109:
104:
99:
95:
91:
86:
81:
75:
74:
69:
66:
62:
58:
55:
52:
48:
41:
37:
27:
22:
16:
987:in Australia
956:Rhode Island
882:
874:
866:
847:
839:
831:
823:
817:Burger Court
805:
804:
796:
790:Warren Court
777:
769:
750:
742:
721:
713:
656:Diminishment
587:Colonial era
490:
473:
464:
455:
446:
437:
411:
407:
403:
399:
391:
385:
383:
376:
368:
353:
345:
337:
330:
316:
312:
299:
291:
268:
227:
226:
225:
215:Laws applied
173:
161:
154:Tom C. Clark
149:
137:
88:Case history
71:
53:
15:
735:Taney Court
680:(1978–2006)
644:Removal Act
199:Concurrence
126:Earl Warren
1028:Categories
941:New Mexico
911:California
698:Precedents
430:References
259:Background
247:under the
134:Hugo Black
1069:Tuscarora
926:Louisiana
650:Dawes Act
412:Tuscarora
404:Tuscarora
400:Tuscarora
392:Tuscarora
80:L. Ed. 2d
60:Citations
951:Oklahoma
946:New York
936:Michigan
899:By state
579:Statutes
489:Text of
418:See also
408:Oneida I
387:Oneida I
327:Majority
191:Majority
970:Compare
961:Vermont
921:Indiana
342:Dissent
322:Opinion
207:Dissent
202:Brennan
101:Holding
916:Hawaii
906:Alaska
887:(2005)
879:(2001)
871:(1997)
852:(1986)
844:(1985)
836:(1979)
828:(1974)
809:(1960)
801:(1955)
782:(1941)
774:(1896)
755:(1858)
747:(1857)
726:(1831)
718:(1823)
686:(1982)
674:(1946)
668:(1934)
652:(1887)
646:(1830)
634:(1787)
536:
530:
527:
521:
518:
515:Justia
512:
509:
503:
350:with:
251:for a
176:
174:·
172:
164:
162:·
160:
152:
150:·
148:
140:
138:·
136:
931:Maine
497:
93:Prior
499:U.S.
286:and
106:The
73:more
65:U.S.
63:362
495:362
243:by
82:584
1030::
493:,
305:.
68:99
564:e
557:t
550:v
76:)
70:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.