• Menu
  • Menu

The decision in City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation

You’ll recall my piece describing the tax dispute between the City of Sherrill and County of Oneida on the one hand and the Oneida Indian Nation on the other. The piece is here.

While the Oneidas still respond that all official statements about the dispute are addressed on their website, here, when I had discussions with media relations head Mark Emery, I told him I would link to Justice Ginsberg’s decision in the 8-1 ruling. The text of the case is here. You can also move around to see a synopsis and the concurring opinions and Justice Stevens’ dissent.

As soon as I hear back from the city of Sherrill, representatives who argued the case for the Oneidas at the Supreme Court hearing and the PGA Tour, I will be finishing a piece on the topic for Golf Observer.  I’ll also analyze all seven of the proposed alternatives put forth by the Oneidas, none of which creates more than a paltry fifty-one non-tribal jobs, but which – according to Madison and Oneida county officials – could end up helping the tribe avoid as much as $1.7 million a year in county, school and local property taxes.
[Editor’s Note: Originally, the City granted tax exempt status to the casino itself. We have inquiry in to the town regarding present status and other issues involved in the dispute as it stands today.]

Leave a reply