25 C.F.R. § 292.4

What criteria must newly acquired lands meet under the exceptions regarding tribes with and without a reservation?

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

For gaming to be allowed on newly acquired lands under the exceptions in 25 U.S.C. 2719(a) of IGRA, the land must meet the location requirements in either paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of this section.

(a) If the tribe had a reservation on October 17, 1988, the lands must be located within or contiguous to the boundaries of the reservation.

(b) If the tribe had no reservation on October 17, 1988, the lands must be either:

(1) Located in Oklahoma and within the boundaries of the tribe's former reservation or contiguous to other land held in trust or restricted status for the tribe in Oklahoma; or

(2) Located in a State other than Oklahoma and within the tribe's last recognized reservation within the State or States within which the tribe is presently located, as evidenced by the tribe's governmental presence and tribal population.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases, 2015–2017 · leading case: Kansas ex rel. Schmidt v. Nat'l Indian Gaming Comm'n, 151 F. Supp. 3d 1199 (D. Kan. 2015).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Kansas ex rel. Schmidt v. Nat'l Indian Gaming Comm'n, 151 F. Supp. 3d 1199 (D. Kan. 2015). · cites it 20× “The OGC also opined that the Quapaw was “presently located” in Kansas under the terms of 25 C.F.R. § 292.4 (b)(2), a DOI regulation *1208 implementing the IGRA.”

State of Kansas v. Nat'l Indian Gaming, 861 F.3d 1024 (10th Cir. 2017). “See also 25 C.F.R. § 292.4 (b)(2). On November 21, 2014, the NIGC Acting General Counsel sent a letter to the Tribe’s attorney concluding that the Kansas land is eligible for gaming under IGRA’s “last recognized reservation” exception.”

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.