C.F.R. » Title 25 » CHAPTER I—BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR › SUBCHAPTER H—LAND AND WATER › PART 169—RIGHTS-OF-WAY OVER INDIAN LAND › Subpart F—Compliance and Enforcement

25 C.F.R. § 169.413

What if an individual or entity takes possession of or uses Indian land or BIA land without a right-of-way or other proper authorization?

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

If an individual or entity takes possession of, or uses, Indian land or BIA land without a right-of-way and a right-of-way is required, the unauthorized possession or use is a trespass. An unauthorized use within an existing right-of-way is also a trespass. We may take action to recover possession, including eviction, on behalf of the Indian landowners and pursue any additional remedies available under applicable law. The Indian landowners may pursue any available remedies under applicable law, including applicable tribal law.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2020–2026 · leading case: JoAnn Chase v. Andeavor Logistics, L.P., 12 F.4th 864 (8th Cir. 2021).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
JoAnn Chase v. Andeavor Logistics, L.P., 12 F.4th 864 (8th Cir. 2021). · cites it 2× “’” They further argue that 25 C.F.R. § 169.413 governs who may bring an action for trespass on Indian lands in federal court and allows either the BIA or the Allottees to independently do so, and that the BIA’s ability to bring a claim on their behalf does not impair their…”
Swinomish Indian Tribal Cmty. v. BNSF Ry. Co., 951 F.3d 1142 (9th Cir. 2020). “” 25 C.F.R. § 169.413 ; see also 25 C.F.R. § 169.”
JoAnn Chase v. Andeavor Logistics, L.P., 165 F.4th 1101 (8th Cir. 2026). · cites it 2× “In January 2018, the BIA issued Andeavor a 10-Day Show-Cause Letter stating that the pipeline had been trespassing on individually-owned Indian lands since the 5 The regulations also provide that “Indian landowners may pursue any available remedies under applicable law,…”
Swinomish Indian Tribal Cmty. v. BNSF Ry. Co., No. 18-35704 (9th Cir. Mar. 4, 2020). “” 25 C.F.R. § 169.413 ; see also 25 C.F.R. § 169.”
Shoshone Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Reservation v. United States, No. 4:18-cv-00285 (D. Idaho Jan. 22, 2024). “3 The Tribes also argue in their reply brief that the “Bad Men” provision of the Fort Bridger Treaty of July 3, 1868, and 25 C.F.R. 169.413 provide alternative grounds to assert their ejectment claims against the federal Defendants.”
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.