25 C.F.R. § 151.11

How will the Secretary evaluate a request involving land outside of and noncontiguous to the boundaries of an Indian reservation?

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) The Secretary shall consider the criteria in this section when evaluating requests for the acquisition of land in trust status when the land is located outside of and noncontiguous to an Indian reservation:

(1) The existence of statutory authority for the acquisition and any limitations contained in such authority;

(2) If the applicant is an individual Indian and the land is already held in trust or restricted status, the need for additional land, the amount of trust or restricted land already owned by or for that individual, and the degree to which the individual needs assistance in handling their affairs;

(3) The purposes for which the land will be used; and

(4) If the land to be acquired is in fee status, whether the Bureau of Indian Affairs is equipped to discharge the additional responsibilities resulting from the acquisition of the land in trust status.

(b) The Secretary shall give great weight to acquiring land that serves any of the following purposes, in accordance with § 151.3:

(1) Furthers Tribal interests by establishing a Tribal land base or protects Tribal homelands;

(2) Protects sacred sites or cultural resources and practices;

(3) Establishes or maintains conservation or environmental mitigation areas;

(4) Consolidates land ownership;

(5) Reduces checkerboarding;

(6) Acquires land lost through allotment;

(7) Protects treaty or subsistence rights; or

(8) Facilitates Tribal self-determination, economic development, or Indian housing.

(c) Upon receipt of a written request to have land outside the boundaries of an Indian reservation acquired in trust status, the Secretary shall notify the State and local governments with regulatory jurisdiction over the land to be acquired. The notice will inform the State or local government that each will be given 30 calendar days in which to provide written comments on the acquisition's potential impact on regulatory jurisdiction, real property taxes, and special assessments. If the State or local government responds within 30 calendar days, a copy of the comments will be provided to the applicant, who will be given a reasonable time in which to reply, if they choose to do so in their discretion, or request that the Secretary issue a decision. In reviewing such comments, the Secretary will consider the location of the land and potential conflicts of land use. The Secretary presumes that the Tribe will benefit from the acquisition.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 32 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1999–2024 · leading case: Stand up for California v. State of Cal., 6 Cal. App. 5th 686 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Stand up for California v. State of Cal., 6 Cal. App. 5th 686 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 8× “( 25 C.F.R. § 151.11 (a)-(c) [incorporating 25 C.”

Cachil Dehe Band of Wintun v. Ryan Zinke, 889 F.3d 584 (9th Cir. 2018). · cites it 3× “The panel further held that, pursuant to the Act’s implementing regulations in 25 C.F.R. § 151.11 (a), the Secretary properly considered Enterprise’s “need” for the land.”

Akiachak Native Cmty. v. United States Dep't of the Interior, 827 F.3d 100 (D.C. Cir. 2016). · cites it 2× “Quite to the contrary, Interior will 27 have to comply with its land-into-trust regulations, which establish a multi-step process requiring the Department to consider, among other things, jurisdictional conflicts and the effect of any acquisition on state and local governments,…”

Michigan Gambling Opposition v. Kempthorne, 525 F.3d 23 (D.C. Cir. 2008). · cites it 2× “at 5 (citing 25 C.F.R. § 151.11 (b)). If the majority is right about the principle guiding these decisions, it cannot be proper for BIA to deny an acquisition because of the harm to local government caused by "the removal of the land from the tax rolls," id.”

Carcieri v. Kempthorne, 497 F.3d 15 (1st Cir. 2005). · cites it 3× “See 25 C.F.R. § 151.11 . Generally, the farther from a reservation the land is, the greater the scrutiny the Secretary gives to the justification of anticipated benefits from the acquisition.”

Carcieri v. Norton, 398 F.3d 22 (1st Cir. 2005). · cites it 2× “11(b) are as follows: The location of the land relative to state boundaries, and its distance from the boundaries of the tribe’s reservation, shall be considered as follows: as the distance between the tribe’s reservation and the land to be acquired increases, the Secretary…”

Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde Cmty. of Oregon v. Jewell, 830 F.3d 552 (D.C. Cir. 2016). “See 25 C.F.R. 151.11(c) (“Where land is being acquired for business purposes, the tribe shall provide a plan which specifies the anticipated economic benefits associated with the proposed use.”

City of Roseville v. Norton, Gale A., 348 F.3d 1020 (D.C. Cir. 2003). “In response to the Bureau of Indian Affairs’ notice and request for comments, see 25 C.F.R. § 151.11 (2003), the Cities opposed the Auburn Tribe’s application, arguing that the casino would increase crime in their communities and interfere with planned residential developments…”

South Dakota v. United States Dep't of the Interior, 314 F. Supp. 2d 935 (D.S.D. 2004). · cites it 3× “” The relevant section of these regulations is 25 C.F.R. § 151.11 , which deals with off-reservation acquisitions of land.”

Yankton Sioux Tribe v. Podhradsky, 606 F.3d 994 (8th Cir. 2010). “” 25 C.F.R. § 151.11 (b). If off reservation land is being acquired for business purposes, “the tribe shall provide a plan which specifies the anticipated economic benefits.”

Forest Cnty. Potawatomi Cmty. v. Sally Jewel, 278 F. Supp. 3d 181 (D.D.C. 2017). “, 25 C.F.R. §§ 151.11 (c), 292.17(a), (j)(2)-(3), 292.”

City of Lincoln v. United States Dep't of Interior, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1109 (D. Or. 2002). · cites it 2× “For off-reservation acquisitions, the Secretary must consider the following: (a) The criteria listed in 25 C.”

Show all 32 citing cases →

— 25 C.F.R. § 151.11(c) — 2 cases

Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Cmty. of Oregon v. Jewell, 830 F.3d 754 (D.C. Cir. 2016).

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.