New York State has launched a legal challenge against the federal government over land ownership and tribal sovereignty involving the Seneca Nation, reopening a dispute over a 207-acre property on Grand Island. According to reports by WIVB News 4 and Spectrum News, the lawsuits challenge federal decisions that granted restricted-fee status to properties owned by the Native American nation, including land donated for $1 by a local development company. The legal action, brought against the US Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Indian Affairs, concerns two separate property disputes. One involves land in Buffalo, while the other centres on the much larger Grand Island parcel, which the Seneca Nation considers part of its ancestral homeland. The Grand Island property was transferred to the Seneca Nation in December 2025 by William and Michael Huntress, owners of Acquest Development. The 207-acre site was donated for a nominal payment of $1, with the transaction approved by the Seneca Nation Council.The land is situated west of Interstate 190, between Long Road and Bedell Road. It includes approximately 141 acres zoned for industrial use and another 66 acres designated for residential purposes. The Department of the Interior approved the Seneca Nation’s application for restricted-fee status on February 24, 2026. The designation recognises the property as sovereign Seneca territory, giving the Nation greater authority over its use and development. The federal approval also meant that the land would be treated differently from ordinary privately owned property under local regulatory and taxation frameworks.However, the decision has faced opposition from local authorities. The Town of Grand Island had already filed its own lawsuit against the federal government in June 2026, arguing that the land did not qualify for restricted-fee status under the Seneca Nation Settlement Act. Its central argument was that the legislation required qualifying land to be acquired using funds provided under the Act, whereas the Grand Island property was transferred through a donation agreement for $1.New York State has now raised similar questions in its latest legal challenge. The state argues that federal authorities failed to establish that the properties were acquired using eligible Settlement Act funds. It also disputes whether those funds were still available for the acquisitions. The Buffalo properties are separately at the centre of a dispute involving two parcels at 5 Miami Street and 124 Chicago Street. Their restricted-fee status was approved in 2023. The disagreement has become particularly contentious because the Seneca Nation is developing a proposed One Stop gas station and truck stop at the Miami Street location.The City of Buffalo has separately challenged the development, arguing that the project should be subject to local planning, zoning and environmental requirements. However, a judge previously rejected the city’s request for an emergency halt to construction, allowing work to continue while the wider legal dispute proceeds.The state has also pointed to the Nation’s 2002 gaming compact, arguing that remaining Settlement Act funds were intended for specific purposes, including casino acquisitions and housing projects near existing reservations or gaming facilities. According to the state’s position, the proposed use of the disputed properties does not satisfy those conditions.The Seneca Nation has strongly opposed the latest lawsuits, viewing them as another challenge to its sovereignty and its ability to manage its ancestral lands. Nation President J. Conrad Seneca criticised the state administration for pursuing legal action without directly informing the Nation and said it would continue defending its rights and economic interests.The development comes at a time when the Seneca Nation is seeking to expand its economic opportunities while reclaiming portions of its ancestral territory. When the Grand Island donation was announced in December 2025, the Nation had said it had no immediate development plans for the property but saw potential for future economic growth. The outcome of the latest legal challenges could have implications beyond the two disputed locations, particularly for how federal authorities assess tribal land acquisitions and the extent of state and local oversight over properties granted restricted-fee status.