Shinnecocks seek court order to block tribal trustees from being jailed for contempt

The Shinnecock Indian Nation has filed a new request for a federal court order to stop state court actions in a case that could see top tribal officials jailed for contempt, even as it amended its federal complaint to name as a defendant the state Supreme Court judge who has ruled against the tribe.

The federal lawsuit filed last week against Gov. Kathy Hochul, Attorney General Letitia James and state Supreme Court Justice Maureen T. Liccione, comes amid increasingly consequential state and federal cases that most recently included Liccione’s ruling that top Shinnecock officials and their billboard operators were in contempt of court for not turning off the tribe's digital billboards.

Court papers and an appearance in federal court last month indicated Liccione was considering possible jail sentences for top Shinnecock officials, including the Nation’s first chairwoman Lisa Goree, because the Nation has declined to obey Liccione’s order to turn off digital billboards on Sunrise Highway. The Nation maintains state courts have no authority over the federally recognized tribe.

"The notion that this judge was somehow going to jail the leadership of the Shinnecock Nation is unacceptable," said Lance Gumbs, vice chairman of the Shinnecock Nation's council of trustees, charging it ignores tribal sovereignty. "We’re taking that seriously."

Liccione did not respond to messages left at her Riverhead chambers on Friday, and a court spokesman didn't respond to a request for comment.

The newly requested preliminary injunction, if approved by federal District Judge Nusrat J. Choudhury in Central Islip next month, would halt proceedings in the state cases against the Shinnecock Nation leaders, including the state Department of Transportation’s 2019 case seeking to stop operation of the 65-foot digital billboards on tribal property on Sunrise Highway.

Some local residents and others say the billboards and construction for a separate gas station on the adjacent property are an eyesore and should adhere to local zoning and state law. The tribe says they are necessary for economic development.

The Shinnecock filing also seeks declaratory judgments that state officials are violating federal law by enforcing an illegally obtained right-of-way on tribal land at Sunrise Highway; and that the state must obtain a "valid" easement with compensation for the tribe. It also seeks to declare the state violated the scope of the existing easement by limiting tribal economic development and a declaration that Liccione is "violating federal law by ordering" state court actions against Shinnecock trustees.

The newly updated federal complaint, written by Shinnecock attorney Tela Troge and outside lawyers, presents a comprehensive history of the state’s 1959 "easement" to complete the highway, while challenging its legality from federal and state-law perspectives. It notes the Nation was unaware of any alleged pact with the state until work began and that the tribe has never received compensation for the appropriation.

The Nation argues in its complaint that the issues should be resolved "based on federal Indian law," not state, and that the easement, even if valid, should not have restricted Shinnecock development on the property. The tribe has never received any compensation for the easement, and no tribal officials signed it.

"There are no records of any discussion with the Nation" over the easement, Gumbs said. "The Nation didn’t find out about this until there was actual construction going on though the property. To say we knew or that we were informed is false and misleading." 

The state Department of Transportation, in a statement, has said it "has no comment on this matter." Hochul spokesman Ken Lovett said, "We decline to comment on pending litigation." A spokeswoman for James didn’t return messages seeking comment.

The Shinnecock Nation has long argued that the state’s 3.62-acre easement across Westwoods, effectuated through a 1959 "Notice of Appropriation," was illegal because it bore no signatures of Shinnecock leaders and resulted in no benefit for the Nation.

New York State demonstrated that it knew Westwoods was restricted Indian land, the suit argued, because its appropriation of the land took the form of a permanent easement rather than through eminent domain, as it did with all other private properties along the route.

The Shinnecock Nation received federal recognition in 2010, and a Jan. 2, 2025, letter from the U.S. Department of the Interior determined Westwoods is "within the Nation’s aboriginal territory." The finding states that the Nation has resided on its aboriginal territory "since time immemorial" and that Westwoods’ restricted status makes it subject to the federal Non-Intercourse Act, requiring an act of Congress for actions such as state easements.

Suffolk County tax maps between 1929 and 1993 refer to Westwoods as "Indian Lands," "Shinnecock Reservation" or "Shinnecock Tribe," and the Nation has never paid taxes on the property, the suit says. Even local subdivision maps for local developments around it refer to Westwoods as "Indian Land," and that status has never been challenged in official records, according to the suit.

By Mark Harrington

mark.harrington@newsday.comMHarringtonNews

Mark Harrington, a Newsday reporter since 1999, covers energy, wineries, Indian affairs and fisheries.