In his land claim decision, U.S. District Judge Richard J. Arcara questioned whether the Niagara Frontier was really the Senecas' aboriginal land.

The Senecas assume that it is - and that is the basis for their seeking quick federal approval for their casinos.

"This knocks that approach out of the box," said Rep. John J. LaFalce, D-Town of Tonawanda, a leading opponent of a Buffalo casino.

He suggests that Arcara's land claim decision could force the Senecas to face a time-consuming federal study of the casinos' community impact.

Other lawyers familiar with the casino issue and the Grand Island land claim agreed, saying Arcara raised a new wrinkle that could make federal approval of the casinos more arduous.

At issue is an arcane provision in the law that Congress passed in 1990, renewing land leases in the Seneca-owned City of Salamanca.

That provision allows the tribe to buy "lands within its aboriginal area in the state or situated within or near proximity to reservation land."

State and local governments have 30 days to comment on the removal of such lands from their tax rolls, and then the secretary of the interior has 30 days to determine whether the land acquisition should go forward.

The Senecas plan to rely on that provision to buy land for casinos in Buffalo and Niagara Falls.

Such purchases are usually subject to a much tougher federal review process. But last summer, the Senecas' attorney, Barry Brandon, said, "By law, we are entitled to a very quick turnaround."

But the Senecas are not entitled to a quick turnaround if the casino land is not really in their aboriginal territory.

Many people think it isn't.

In fact, New York State - which has partnered with the Senecas on the casino deal - argued in the Grand Island case that the Niagara Frontier is not the Senecas' aboriginal land.

Citing research by Canadian historian Alex Von Gernet, the state said the Senecas' homeland was 60 to 70 miles to the east, in the Genesee River valley.

Back in the 1600s, a tribe called the Neutrals inhabited what's now the Buffalo metropolitan area. The Senecas slaughtered the Neutrals in 1651, but the state contends that that wasn't enough to turn the area into the Senecas' aboriginal territory.

Courts have defined aboriginal territory as that belonging to tribes since "time immemorial."

"Simply put, the Senecas were not early inhabitants of the Niagara Frontier," the state argued in its brief in the Grand Island case.

In his decision, Arcara essentially agreed with the state's argument.

"Unlike the other Indian land claim cases in New York, this is not a case involving an Indian tribe's ancestral homelands," Arcara wrote. "The Seneca Nation's ancestral homelands were located in the Genesee Valley, not in the Niagara region, and certainly not in the Niagara Islands."

While Arcara's decision doesn't directly apply to the casino matter, it could have a huge indirect impact in one of two ways.

Impact of court ruling

First, the Department of the Interior might be more reluctant to rubber-stamp the casino land transfer after Arcara's decision.

"With this tossed in, the Department of the Interior would have to be crazy to do that," LaFalce said.

Second, if the feds do quickly approve the land transfer, the Arcara decision gives opponents of gambling more ammunition to take to court to fight the casinos.

"Historically this has been treated as aboriginal land," said Jennifer Coleman, an attorney who fought the Salamanca lease deal in court.

But if it's not, she said, "it throws the statute wide open."

Neither Brandon nor Arlinda Locklear, the Senecas' land claim lawyer, returned calls seeking comment on the matter.

Other sources said the Senecas might have alternative arguments that would allow them to get a quick federal approval. For one thing, the law approving the lease deal includes that vague phrase allowing the Senecas to quickly buy land "situated within or in near proximity to former reservation land."

The Senecas could argue that that phrase gives them the right to buy land in Erie and Niagara counties, on the theory that it's in "near proximity" to its reservations.

Then again, if the Department of the Interior or the courts rule that the Senecas can't get the land transfers quickly approved under the Salamanca law, the tribe would have to take the much slower approach included in the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.

Public opposition a factor

Under that law, a tribe must prove that an off-reservation casino would be in the best interest of the tribe and would not be detrimental to the surrounding community. Getting such approval can take years.

Public opposition would play a much stronger role under that more stringent review process. And there is substantial opposition in Erie County: A Buffalo News poll recently showed that more than half of Erie County residents oppose an Indian-run casino in Buffalo.

In contrast, Niagara County residents supported such a casino there.