§5.10 TITLE ACTIONS
Historically, the general federal policy against alienation of Indian property and the Non-Intercourse Act, 25 U.S.C. §177, lead to the result that such standard state defenses to title actions as adverse possession, statutes of limitations, laches, and estoppel by sale do not operate to divest a tribe or individual Indian of an interest in trust or restricted land. Oneida Indian Nation v. Oneida County, 414 U.S. 661, 669, 94 S. Ct. 772, 39 L. Ed. 2d 73 (1974); see also, e.g., United States v. Ahtanum Irrig. Dist., 236 F.2d 321 (9th Cir. 1956), cert. denied, 352 U.S. 988 (1957). See generally COHEN'S HANDBOOK OF FEDERAL INDIAN LAW §15.06[5] (Nell Jessup Newton et al. eds., 2005 ed. & Supp. 2007).
However, in City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York, 544 U.S. 197, 125 S. Ct. 1478, 161 L. Ed. 2d 386 (2005), the Supreme Court held that a tribe's reacquisition of land 200 years after it lost title in violation of federal law could not "revive its ancient sovereignty" and prevent state taxation of the land. City of Sherrill, 544 U.S. at 203. The decision was based on "standards...
