25 C.F.R. § 292.6

What must be demonstrated to meet the “initial reservation” exception?

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

This section contains criteria for meeting the requirements of 25 U.S.C. 2719(b)(1)(B)(ii), known as the “initial reservation” exception. Gaming may occur on newly acquired lands under this exception only when all of the following conditions in this section are met:

(a) The tribe has been acknowledged (federally recognized) through the administrative process under part 83 of this chapter.

(b) The tribe has no gaming facility on newly acquired lands under the restored land exception of these regulations.

(c) The land has been proclaimed to be a reservation under 25 U.S.C. 467 and is the first proclaimed reservation of the tribe following acknowledgment.

(d) If a tribe does not have a proclaimed reservation on the effective date of these regulations, to be proclaimed an initial reservation under this exception, the tribe must demonstrate the land is located within the State or States where the Indian tribe is now located, as evidenced by the tribe's governmental presence and tribal population, and within an area where the tribe has significant historical connections and one or more of the following modern connections to the land:

(1) The land is near where a significant number of tribal members reside; or

(2) The land is within a 25-mile radius of the tribe's headquarters or other tribal governmental facilities that have existed at that location for at least 2 years at the time of the application for land-into-trust; or

(3) The tribe can demonstrate other factors that establish the tribe's current connection to the land.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2014–2023 · leading case: Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde Cmty. of Oregon v. Jewell, 830 F.3d 552 (D.C. Cir. 2016).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde Cmty. of Oregon v. Jewell, 830 F.3d 552 (D.C. Cir. 2016). · cites it 3× “” 25 C.F.R. § 292.6 (d) (emphasis added). This is in contrast to the restored-lands exception, which requires at least “a significant historical connection to the land” itself.”

Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Cmty. of Oregon v. Jewell, 75 F. Supp. 3d 387 (D.D.C. 2014). · cites it 4× “” 25 C.F.R. § 292.6 . A tribe demonstrates “significant historical connections” by presenting “historical documentation [of] the existence of the tribe’s villages, burial grounds, occupancy or subsistence use in the vicinity of the land.”

Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Cmty. of Oregon v. Jewell, 830 F.3d 754 (D.C. Cir. 2016). · cites it 3× “” 25 C.F.R. § 292.6 (d) (emphasis added). This is in contrast to the restored-lands exception, which requires at least “a significant historical connection to the land" itself.”

Stand Up for California! v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior (D.D.C. 2016). “§ 2719(b)(1)(B)(iii), which require “[t]he tribe [to] demonstrate a significant historical connection to the land,” 25 C.F.R. §§ 292.6 , 292.12(b), the tribe need not have any historical connection to the land to develop a gaming establishment on newly acquired lands pursuant to…”

Littlefield v. United States Dep't of the Interior (D. Mass. 2023). “” 25 C.F.R. § 292.6 (d). Plaintiffs thus attempt to add to the regulations a requirement of contiguity that does not exist.”

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.