In delivering the opinion of the Court, Associate Justice Byron White wrote that jurisdiction for such suits arose both from 28 U.S.C.

Chief Judge Henry Friendly, for the Second Circuit, held that the assertion of jurisdiction "shatters on the rock of the 'well-pleaded complaint' rule."

The Second Circuit placed weight upon Taylor v. Anderson, 234 U.S. 74 (1914), holding that there was no federal jurisdiction for an ejectment action that alleged wrongful alienation of lands allotted to Choctaw and Chickasaw Indians.

"[2] The Court distinguished Taylor v. Anderson on these grounds Here, the right to possession itself is claimed to arise under federal law in the first instance.

But this only underlines the legal reality that the controversy alleged in the complaint may well depend on what the reach and impact of the federal law will prove to be in this case.

Justices Rehnquist and Powell concurred separately, emphasizing their understanding that the majority's holding would not apply to ejectment actions brought by non-Indians.

The larger portion of the Oneida [clarification needed] claim, to the 6-million-acre (24,000 km2) tract, was rejected by the Second Circuit in 1988 on the grounds that the Confederation Congress Proclamation of 1783 had neither the authority nor the intent to limit the acquisition of Indian lands within the borders of US states.