That being said, I'm of two minds about the sovereignty issue - if the treaties between the tribes and the government says they are sovereign, then that's the law. If it doesn't, then that's the law, too... I mean, we ARE still a nation of laws, right? Or did the last 8 years of Clintonism change all that???
And as for the common cry of "it was taken illegally," while perhaps technically true, the term does not mean what the Indians and their proponents would have the general public believe.
The "illegal" taking of the land occurred when NYS purchased the land from the Indians, compensated them, and entered into a treaty. Almost two hundred years later, the tribe declared that the treaty was not binding because it had never been ratified by Congress ( in addition, there is some likelihood that, at the time of the purchase, there was no clear authority showing that congressional ratification was required). So the tribe sued.
Rather than apply the standard doctrines of "statute of limitations" or "laches" (doctrines that limit the amount of time under which an allegedly aggreived party can bring suit,due to the recognition of the injustice that can arise from reviving long dormant issues) that a court would apply to a non-binding contract if one of parties weren't an Indian tribe, the court held that the suit could go forward against the state, the local municipalities and the thousands of property owners who live in the land claim area.
This case is as ridiculous as if somebody sued you today because 200 years ago one of his ancestors sold the land your house sits on and forgot to have the deed notarized.