25 C.F.R. § 1.2
Applicability of regulations and reserved authority of the Secretary of the Interior
The regulations in chapter I of title 25 of the Code of Federal Regulations are of general application. Notwithstanding any limitations contained in the regulations of this chapter, the Secretary retains the power to waive or make exceptions to his regulations as found in chapter I of title 25 CFR in all cases where permitted by law and the Secretary finds that such waiver or exception is in the best interest of the Indians.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1977–2021 · leading case: Muwekma Ohlone Tribe v. Kempthorne, 452 F. Supp. 2d 105 (D.D.C. 2006).
Muwekma Ohlone Tribe v. Kempthorne, 452 F. Supp. 2d 105 (D.D.C. 2006). “The Department’s contention to Muwekma notwithstanding, it is important to note that its regulations provide that the Secretary of the Interior “retains the power to waive or make exceptions to [Department regulations pertaining to Indian affairs] in all cases where permitted by…”
James Clay v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 990 F.3d 1296 (11th Cir. 2021). “That provision just confers on the Commissioner of Indian Affairs general authority over “Indian affairs.”
Atkinson v. Haldane, 569 P.2d 151 (Alaska 1977). “These regulations were contained in 25 C.F.R. §§ 1.2 et seq. (1939 ed.). They are no longer a part of C.”
Koi Nation of N. Cal. v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior, 361 F. Supp. 3d 14 (D.C. Cir. 2019). “3d at 216 (explaining DOI "exercised its broad authority" to reaffirm the Koi Nation, quoting 25 C.F.R. § 1.2 , which "authoriz[es] exception to Part 83 process 'in all cases where permitted by law and the Secretary finds that such waiver or exception is in the best interest of…”
Muwekma Ohlone Tribe v. Kenneth Salazar, 708 F.3d 209 (D.C. Cir. 2013). “See 25 C.F.R. § 1.2 (authorizing exception to Part 83 process “in all cases where permitted by law and the Secretary finds that such waiver or exception is in the best interest of the Indians”).”
Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma v. Norton, 389 F.3d 1074 (10th Cir. 2004). “In so doing, the DOI’s actions were arbitrary and capricious.”
Muwekma Ohlone Tribe v. Salazar, 813 F. Supp. 2d 170 (D.D.C. 2011). “” 3 25 C.F.R. § 1.2 . A petitioner, however, is not required to provide conclusive evidence under each of the Part 83 criteria; rather, a “criterion shall be considered met if the available evidence establishes a reasonable likelihood of the validity of the facts relating to…”
Langley v. Edwards, 872 F. Supp. 1531 (W.D. La. 1995). “Then, too, the Secretary has retained the power to waive regulations in "all cases where permitted by law and the Secretary finds that such waiver .”
Florida, Dep't of Bus. Reg. v. United States Dep't of the Interior, 768 F.2d 1248 (11th Cir. 1985). “” 25 C.F.R. § 1.2 . On January 16, 1981, the Department took title to the land in the name of the United States.”
Est. of Bear Ex Rel. Billy v. Belcourt, 631 P.2d 285 (Mont. 1981). “The state is precluded by federal preemption and the exercise of plenary power of the United States over Indian tribes from exercising jurisdiction in Indian estate and probate matters.”
Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma v. Babbitt, 117 F.3d 1489 (D.C. Cir. 1997). “Nothing in the record reveals a finding by the Department pursuant to 25 C.F.R. § 1.2 (1996), whereby the regulations were waived “in the best interest of the Indians.”
Warfield v. Frank-Hill (In re Frank-Hill), 300 B.R. 25 (Bankr. D. Ariz. 2003). “; 25 C.F.R. § 1.2 et seq.; and 43 C.F.R. § 4.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.