25 C.F.R. § 152.22
Secretarial approval necessary to convey individual-owned trust or restricted lands or land owned by a tribe
(a) Individual lands. Trust or restricted lands, except inherited lands of the Five Civilized Tribes, or any interest therein, may not be conveyed without the approval of the Secretary. Moreover, inducing an Indian to execute an instrument purporting to convey any trust land or interest therein, or the offering of any such instrument for record, is prohibited and criminal penalties may be incurred. (See 25 U.S.C. 202 and 348.)
(b) Tribal lands. Lands held in trust by the United States for an Indian tribe, lands owned by a tribe with Federal restrictions against alienation and any other land owned by an Indian tribe may only be conveyed where specific statutory authority exists and then only with the approval of the Secretary unless the Act of Congress authorizing sale provides that approval is unnecessary. (See 25 U.S.C. 177.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1985–2025 · leading case: Oneida Indian Nation v. Madison Cnty., 665 F.3d 408 (2d Cir. 2011).
Oneida Indian Nation v. Madison Cnty., 665 F.3d 408 (2d Cir. 2011). “” See also 25 C.F.R. § 152.22 (b). . As we will discuss further below, the parties vigorously dispute whether the Treaty of Buffalo Creek effected a legal disestablishment or diminishment of the Oneida Nation's ancient reservation.”
Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin v. Vill. of Hobart, 732 F.3d 837 (7th Cir. 2013). “§§ 81 , 177; 25 C.F.R. § 152.22 . So one may wonder how it is that non-Indians own land in Hobart even though the village is entirely within the boundaries of the Oneida reservation.”
In Re Emerald Outdoor Advert., Llc, Debtor, Tiffany Harrison, Creditor Gold Eagle Gaming Llc, Creditor v. Emerald Outdoor Advert., LLC, 444 F.3d 1077 (9th Cir. 2006). “See 25 C.F.R. § 152.22 (a) (“[Ijnducing an Indian to execute an instrument purporting to convey any trust land or interest therein, or the offering of any such instrument for record, is prohibited and criminal penalties may be incurred.”
Oglala Sioux Tribe of the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation v. United States, 21 Cl. Ct. 176 (Ct. Cl. 1990). “25 C.F.R. § 152.22 . 25 C.F.R. § 152.24 states that “[ejxcept as otherwise provided by the Secretary, an appraisal shall be made indicating the fair market value prior to making or approving a sale, exchange, or other transfer of title of trust or restricted land.”
Bear v. United States, 611 F. Supp. 589 (D. Neb. 1985). “Similarly, 25 C.F.R. § 152.22 provides that ”[t]rust or restricted lands .”
Black Hills Inst. of Geological Rsch. v. South Dakota Sch. of Mines & Tech., 12 F.3d 737 (8th Cir. 1993). “§ 483; see also 25 C.F.R. § 152.22 (1993) (providing that “[t]rust or restricted lands .”
In Re Emerald Outdoor Advert., L.L.C., 300 B.R. 775 (Bankr. E.D. Wash. 2003). “25 C.F.R. § 152.22 states that an Indian may not convey an interest in trust land without approval of the BIA.”
Pueblo of Jemez v. United States, 350 F. Supp. 3d 1052 (D.N.M. 2018). “See also 25 C.F.R. § 152.22 (b) ; *1102 Santa Fe , 314 U.”
Oneida Indian Nation of NY v. Madison Cnty., 605 F.3d 149 (2d Cir. 2011). “" See also 25 C.F.R. § 152.22 (b). 10 1 federal government itself, in apparent disregard of its 2 commitments under the Treaty of Canandaigua, "pursued a policy 3 designed to open reservation lands to white settlers and to 4 remove tribes westward.”
Winnemucca Indian Colony v. United States (Fed. Cir. 2025). “US and 25 C.F.R. § 152.22 establish the required fiduciary duty and money mandate.”
In Re the Marriage of Landauer, 975 P.2d 577 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). “”); see also 25 C.F.R. § 152.17 (“[T]rust or restricted lands acquired by .”
Shade v. United States Dep't of the Interior (D. Alaska 2021). “” 25 C.F.R. § 152.22 . However, because of the Indian lands exception to the QTA, the joinder of the United States as a party to any claim by plaintiff which implicates title to the Chaney Native allotment is foreclosed.”
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.