Eric White, et al. v. Barbara D. Underwood, Attorney General of New York, et al.

The decision below ruled that New York’s promise to the Seneca Nation of Indians to refrain from assessing taxes “for any purpose whatever, upon any Indian reservation in this state” as memorialized in a treaty and statute should be interpreted to allow New York to assess and collect any taxes it desires within the Seneca Nation of Indians so long as New York claims the taxes will be paid by non-Indians. Does this interpretation directly conflict with this Court’s decision in The New York Indians, 72 U.S. 761 (1866), in which this Court specifically prohibited New York from assessing taxes within the Seneca Nation of Indians, even those to be paid by non-Indians, because that mere assessment violated the ancient rights of the Seneca Nation of Indians as memorialized in treaties and a statute? Does this interpretation violate this Court’s canons of construction governing the interpretation of treaties executed and statutes enacted for the benefit of Indians?