(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, none of the laws, ordinances, codes, resolutions, rules or other regulations of any State or political subdivision thereof limiting, zoning or otherwise governing, regulating, or controlling the use or development of any real or personal property, including water rights, shall be applicable to any such property leased from or held or used under agreement with and belonging to any Indian or Indian tribe, band, or community that is held in trust by the United States or is subject to a restriction against alienation imposed by the United States.
(b) The Secretary of the Interior or his authorized representative may in specific cases or in specific geographic areas adopt or make applicable to Indian lands all or any part of such laws, ordinances, codes, resolutions, rules or other regulations referred to in paragraph (a) of this section as he shall determine to be in the best interest of the Indian owner or owners in achieving the highest and best use of such property. In determining whether, or to what extent, such laws, ordinances, codes, resolutions, rules or other regulations shall be adopted or made applicable, the Secretary or his authorized representative may consult with the Indian owner or owners and may consider the use of, and restrictions or limitations on the use of, other property in the vicinity, and such other factors as he shall deem appropriate.
[30 FR 7520, June 9, 1965]
Notes of Decisions
Santa Rosa Band of Indians v. Kings Cnty., 532 F.2d 655 (9th Cir. 1976).
· cites it 6× “Application of 25 C.F.R. § 1.4 , and the “encumbrance” limitation Even assuming these County ordinances were “civil laws of such State or Territory that are of general application to private persons or private property” such that they would have application on the Ranchería…”
Parker Drilling Co. v. Metlakatla Indian Cmty., 451 F. Supp. 1127 (D. Alaska 1978).
· cites it 7× “1975), and 25 C.F.R. 1.4. 25 C.F.R. 1.4 provides: (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, none of the laws, ordinances, codes, resolutions, rules or other regulation of any State or political subdivision thereof limiting, zoning, or otherwise governing,…”
Juan Segundo v. City of Rancho Mirage, a Mun. Corp., Jean Chormicle Kapp v. City of Cathedral City, California, 813 F.2d 1387 (9th Cir. 1987).
· cites it 3× “In addition to the specific provisions regarding leasing of Indian lands, 25 C.F.R. § 1.4 provides that unless specifically adopted by the Secretary, none of the laws, ordinances, codes, resolutions, rules or other regulations of any State or political subdivision thereof…”
Cayuga Nation v. Howard Tanner, 6 F.4th 361 (2d Cir. 2021).
“§ 177 ); and 25 C.F.R. 1.4” id. ¶ 32 , and an injunction against future enforcement actions.”
Norvell v. Sangre De Cristo Dev. Co., Inc., 372 F. Supp. 348 (D.N.M. 1974).
· cites it 7× “§ 415 (a) and the regulations promulgated by the Secretary of the Interior at 25 C.F.R. §§ 1.4 , 131. The state then filed the present action.”
Shivwits Band of Paiute Indians v. Utah, 428 F.3d 966 (10th Cir. 2005).
· cites it 5× “§ 465 (and the accompanying regulation, 25 C.F.R. § 1.4 ) [wa]s unconstitutional; (2) the taking of the land in trust and the approval of the lease .”
Carcieri v. Kempthorne, 497 F.3d 15 (1st Cir. 2005).
· cites it 2× “25 C.F.R. § 1.4 (a). This provision is subject to the Secretary’s power in specific cases or areas to make applicable those local laws determined to be in the best interest of the Indian owners “in achieving the highest and best use of [the] property.”
Club One Casino, Inc. v. David Bernhardt, 959 F.3d 1142 (9th Cir. 2020).
“Federal control over trust land is evident and made clear in regulations such as 25 C.F.R. § 1.4 (a), which precludes state or local regulation of property “belonging to any Indian or Indian tribe, band, or community that is held in trust by the United States[.”
State v. Sebastian, 701 A.2d 13 (Conn. 1997).
· cites it 2× “§ 1322 (b), 49 the Nonintercourse Act, 50 and 25 C.F.R. § 1.4 51 preclude the state from exercising criminal jurisdiction in this case.”
— 25 C.F.R. § 1.4(a) — 1 case
— 25 C.F.R. § 1.4(b) — 1 case
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.