The U.S. Supreme Court case City of Sherrill, New York v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York in 2004 revolved around the issue of land sovereignty and taxation rights. The Oneida Indian Nation purchased lands within their historic reservation boundaries that had been sold to non-Native Americans in the late 18th century and claimed they were exempt from local taxes since it was tribal land. However, the city argued that these properties should be taxed because they were under its jurisdiction for over two centuries after being bought by non-Indians following a treaty with the state government. The court ruled against the tribe, stating that even though there may have been an illegal seizure of tribal lands in history, too much time had passed (laches) for them to reclaim sovereignty over this territory now integrated into Sherrill's municipal domain without disrupting settled expectations.

In the dissenting opinion for City of Sherrill, New York v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York, Justice Stevens argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and principles regarding Native American land rights. He contended that the court had no authority to impose a temporal limitation on the Oneidas' sovereignty over their ancestral lands based on an "equitable" principle not found in any treaty or federal statute. The justice also criticized the majority's reliance on disruptive consequences as justification for denying tribal sovereignty, arguing it undermined established legal precedents protecting indigenous rights. Furthermore, he expressed concern about how this ruling could potentially affect other tribes who have similarly reacquired portions of their historical territories.