25 C.F.R. § 292.26

What effect do these regulations have on pending applications, final agency decisions, and opinions already issued?

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

These regulations apply to all requests pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 2719, except:

(a) These regulations do not alter final agency decisions made pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 2719 before the date of enactment of these regulations.

(b) These regulations apply to final agency action taken after the effective date of these regulations except that these regulations shall not apply to applicable agency actions when, before the effective date of these regulations, the Department or the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC) issued a written opinion regarding the applicability of 25 U.S.C. 2719 for land to be used for a particular gaming establishment, provided that the Department or the NIGC retains full discretion to qualify, withdraw or modify such opinions.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2015–2021 · leading case: Cnty. of Amador v. United States Dep't of the Interior, 872 F.3d 1012 (9th Cir. 2017).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Cnty. of Amador v. United States Dep't of the Interior, 872 F.3d 1012 (9th Cir. 2017). · cites it 5× “Interior ruled that the Plymouth Parcels qualify under the so-called “grandfather provision” in the IGRA’s implementing regulations, 25 C.F.R. § 292.26 (b). The County argues, in essence, that the grandfather provision is invalid, at least as applied to the facts of this case.”

Koi Nation of N. Cal. v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior, 361 F. Supp. 3d 14 (D.C. Cir. 2019). · cites it 5× “See 25 C.F.R. § 292.26 (a) (stating that the Part 292 regulations "do not alter final agency decisions made pursuant to [Section 20 of IGRA] before" the Part 292 regulations were enacted"); id.”

Cnty. of Amador v. United States Dep't of the Interior, 136 F. Supp. 3d 1193 (E.D. Cal. 2015). · cites it 4× “25 C.F.R. § 292.26 (b). Here, the Department relies upon an Indian Lands Determination issued in 2006, which found the Plymouth Parcels eligible for gaming.”

No Casino in Plymouth v. Jewell, 136 F. Supp. 3d 1166 (E.D. Cal. 2015). “25 C.F.R. § 292.26 (b). Here, the Department relies upon an Indian Lands Determination issued in 2006, which found the Plymouth Parcels eligible for gaming.”

City of Council Bluffs v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior, 368 F. Supp. 3d 1276 (S.D. Iowa 2019). · cites it 5× “(alteration in original) (quoting 25 C.F.R. § 292.26 (b) ). Finally, the Commission evaluated the Grand Traverse II factors-the temporal, geographic, and factual circumstances surrounding the trust acquisition-and determined that the Carter Lake Parcel was restored lands.”

Fort Sill Apache Tribe v. Nat'l Indian Gaming Comm'n (D.D.C. 2020). “Those regulations do “not apply to applicable agency actions when, before the[ir] effective date [of August 25, 2008,] .”

Kansas, State of v. United States Dep't of Interior (D. Kan. 2020). “A separate regulation states that “[t]hese regulations apply to final agency action taken after the effective date of these regulations except that these regulations shall not apply to applicable agency actions when, before the effective date of these regulations, the Department…”

Kansas, State of v. United States Dep't of Interior (D. Kan. 2021). “” 25 C.F.R. § 292.26 . Although the parties dispute whether it was improper for the Secretary not to consider these regulations, neither party argues that they were inapplicable because of the timing of their enactment.”

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.