Federal Power Commission v. Tuscarora Indian Nation
United States Supreme Court
362 U.S. 99, 80 S. Ct. 543, 4 L. Ed. 2d 584 (1960)
- Written by Jamie Milne, JD
Facts
The State of New York obtained a license from the Federal Power Commission (the commission) (defendant) for a hydroelectric-power project. Pursuant to that license, the state attempted to exercise eminent-domain authority to take certain lands needed for the project. Those lands included approximately 1,383 acres belonging to the Tuscarora Indian Nation (Tuscarora) (plaintiff). The land was to be taken to build a reservoir. Unhappy with the forced exchange of land for the offered compensation, the Tuscarora filed a petition for review with the commission, asserting two main arguments. First, the Tuscarora argued that the land was part of a reservation as that term was defined by the Federal Power Act and the land therefore could not be taken absent a commission finding that the license would not interfere with or be inconsistent with the reservation’s purpose. Second, the Tuscarora argued that § 21 of the Federal Power Act, which conferred eminent-domain powers to licensees, was a broad general statute and, as such, did not apply to Indians and their property. The commission held that the state could validly exercise eminent-domain authority under § 21 to condemn the Tuscarora’s land. However, a federal court of appeals concluded that the Tuscarora’s land fell within the act’s definition of a reservation and that taking the land would interfere with the reservation’s purpose. The court therefore overturned the portion of the state’s license that allowed it to condemn Tuscarora land. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Whittaker, J.)
Dissent (Black, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

