ONEIDA — The Oneida Tribe of Wisconsin Indians has picked up some heavyweight support in its latest battle with the village of Hobart over the extent of its sovereignty.

The state of Wisconsin, the U.S. government, the National Congress of American Indians, and the Indian Land Tenure Foundation have all joined the Oneida tribe in its appeal of an adverse ruling last spring in its federal lawsuit against the village of Hobart.

The fight is over the tribe’s annual Big Apple Fest and whether Hobart had the authority to require the tribe to obtain a special events permit from the village to hold the festival. But U.S. District Judge William Griesbach's decision last spring that Hobart does have that authority could have far-reaching implications, well beyond a simple apple festival.

The state and federal governments claim Griesbach's ruling could negatively affect everything from tribal gaming to tribes' economic relationships with their neighbors, not just in Oneida but all over the country, according to arguments filed in recent weeks with the 7th District Court of Appeals.

RELATED:Oneida tribal sovereignty dealt blow in dispute over festival permit

In his ruling, Griesbach rejected Hobart’s claim that Oneida’s reservation was formally disestablished under a now discontinued U.S. government effort to integrate Native Americans into the mainstream culture. However, the judge agreed that much of the reservation had been sold over the years, thereby diminishing the reservation itself.

That means the festival has been held off the reservation, thereby subjecting the tribe to village rules about special events, Griesbach ruled.

The tribe has appealed, and the state, U.S. government, and two Indian rights organizations have joined that appeal.

In all cases, their arguments — as well as Griesbach’s ruling — center on the interpretation of congressional intent in passing federal laws more than 100 years ago concerning tribal property.

Griesbach determined that the Dawes Act of 1887, the Burke Act of 1906 and the Appropriations Act of 1906, which permit the unrestricted sale of tribal land to non-Indians, show clear intent by Congress to assimilate tribal members into the general population and eliminate Indian reservations.

The appeal claims decades of U.S. Supreme Court and lower court rulings on similar cases have historically found the acts were not sufficient by themselves to change the boundaries of a reservation, and that such diminishment of a reservation requires a specific congressional decree targeting a specific reservation.

The U.S. government, represented by the Attorney General’s office, for example, cited a previous Supreme Court ruling that states, “Once a block of land is set aside for an Indian reservation and no matter what happens to the title of individual plots within the area, the entire block retains its reservation status until Congress explicitly indicates otherwise.”

The Wisconsin Department of Justice cited a case in which a court ruled that a state’s ability to impose property tax within a reservation does not affect the exterior boundaries of the reservation.

Changing state and tribal jurisdiction under Griesbach’s ruling “could negatively impact cooperative state-tribal relationships and create uncertainty about the legal status of tribal gaming facilities,” the state argues.

If Griesbach’s ruling is upheld, it could negatively affect the land base not only of the Oneida but also other Wisconsin tribes as well as numerous service agreements, the state argues. The Oneidas’ ability to enforce laws through its police department could be diminished, putting greater pressure on other area police agencies, and the same thing likely would happen to five other state tribes and their neighbors, the state says.

The ruling could affect the legal status of three of the Oneidas’ five gaming operations that operate on land that, under Griesbach's ruling, might not technically be within reservation boundaries, the state argues. That could jeopardize the roughly 5 percent of the tribe's gaming proceeds that go to the state, Wisconsin argues. The decision creates similar uncertainty for the gaming operations of seven other state tribes.

Hobart, for its part, has made it clear from the start it had no desire to hurt the tribe’s annual Apple Fest but that it was exercising its authority to enforce its ordinances even-handedly. The intent of the permit was to allow the village to address potential impacts on the general public such as noise, dust, light, traffic and parking, according to the village.

The tribe, which has been conducting the event since 2009, coordinated with its police department and other internal agencies, and submitted applications to the state and Brown County to detour traffic. However, it declined to respond to Hobart’s 2016 amended ordinance requiring a rental and/or special event permit for such an event.

This year’s festival, held in September, drew an estimated 8,000 people, according to the tribe.

The village has issued citations to the tribe for conducting the festival every year since 2016 without a village permit, but both sides have agreed to stay municipal court proceedings on those citations until the federal litigation is resolved.

Contact Paul Srubas at (920) 265-3087 or psrubas@gannett.com. Follow him on Twitter at @PGpaulsrubas.