Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
The Supreme Court refused Monday to consider whether the state of New York owed an Indian tribe about $250 million in a dispute over the seizure of tribal land. Justices had been asked to consider a decision by the New York-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that dismissed the Cayuga Nation’s 26-year-old land claim for several reasons, including the passage of time and the tribe’s long delay in seeking relief. A federal judge ruled in 1994 that New York state illegally acquired 64,015 acres of tribal land in Seneca and Cayuga counties in the late 1700s and early 1800s by entering into invalid treaties with the Cayugas. A jury awarded the two tribes $37 million in damages in 2000 for the land’s current worth and the loss of two centuries of fair market rental value. The judge added $211 million in interest. Solicitor General Paul Clement told justices that if the appeals court decision is not thrown out, “it will leave the United States and the affected tribes without any remedy for violations of law that, while ‘ancient,’ were indisputably ‘grave.’” New York lawyers had urged justices to reject separate appeals from the Bush administration and the tribe, saying it is 200 years too late for the claims. The cases are United States of America v. Pataki, 05-978, and Cayuga Indian Nation of New York v. Pataki, 05-982. Court won’t consider gay parents rights Also on Monday, the Supreme Court refused to block a gay woman from seeking parental rights to a child she had helped raise with her partner. Justices could have used the case to clarify the rights of gays in child custody disputes stemming from nontraditional families. They declined, without comment, to disturb a ruling of Washington state’s highest court that said Sue Ellen Carvin could pursue ties to the girl as a “de facto parent.” The girl is now 11. The case had brought a contentious issue to a court that has shied away from gay rights disputes. Lawyers for the girl’s biological mother, Page Britain, told justices that the state court decision in this case and others around the country “pave the way for children to have an unlimited and ever-changing number of parents.” Carvin’s attorneys had said the court has never agreed to hear a case involving parenting or visitation disputes arising from same-sex relationships, a recognition “that state courts can best provide the case by case attention these matters require.” Carvin and Britain had lived together for five years before they decided to become parents. Britain was artificially inseminated and gave birth in 1995 to the daughter, known as L.B. in court papers. The girl called Carvin “Mama” and Britain “Mommy.” The couple broke up in 2001, and the following year, when the girl was 7, Carvin was barred from seeing the girl. After Carvin went to court, Britain married the sperm donor. Justices were told that the father lives in Thailand. The court’s action does not end the case. Carvin must now prove that she is a “de facto parent,” defined by the state court as someone, who though not legally recognized, functions as a child’s actual parent. The case paints a nasty battle between the two women. Britain says she wanted to have the girl baptized in a Catholic church and that her former partner wanted to take L.B. to a Buddhist temple. Carvin contends she was the active parent. One of Britain’s lawyers said Monday that the Supreme Court should provide direction to lower courts. “This is becoming a huge can of worms when courts do not follow the more conventional lines of parental rights,” said Jordan Lorence, senior vice president for the Alliance Defense Fund, an Arizona-based group that has fought same-sex marriage. “This is an issue that the Supreme Court is going to hear at some time in the future.” The case is Britain v. Carvin, 05-974. Copyright 2006 Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.