C.F.R. » Title 25 » CHAPTER I—BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR › SUBCHAPTER F—TRIBAL GOVERNMENT › PART 83—PROCEDURES FOR FEDERAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF INDIAN TRIBES › Subpart B—Criteria for Federal Acknowledgment

25 C.F.R. § 83.12

What are the criteria for a previously federally acknowledged petitioner?

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

(a) The petitioner may prove it was previously acknowledged as a federally recognized Indian tribe, or is a portion that evolved out of a previously federally recognized Indian tribe, by providing substantial evidence of unambiguous Federal acknowledgment, meaning that the United States Government recognized the petitioner as an Indian tribe eligible for the special programs and services provided by the United States to Indians because of their status as Indians with which the United States carried on a relationship at some prior date including, but not limited to, evidence that the petitioner had:

(1) Treaty relations with the United States;

(2) Been denominated a tribe by act of Congress or Executive Order;

(3) Been treated by the Federal Government as having collective rights in tribal lands or funds; or

(4) Land held for it or its collective ancestors by the United States.

(b) Once the petitioner establishes that it was previously acknowledged, it must demonstrate that it meets:

(1) At present, the Community Criterion; and

(2) Since the time of previous Federal acknowledgment or 1900, whichever is later, the Indian Entity Identification Criterion and Political Authority Criterion.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2003–2022 · 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 5× “, and 25 C.F.R. § 83.12 (b) (1994), based on the Secretary’s alleged failure independently to verify the Tribe’s business plan and membership figures.”
Agua Caliente Tribe of Cupeno v. Tara Katuk Mac Lean Sweeney, 932 F.3d 1207 (9th Cir. 2019). · cites it 4× “A tribe that proves it was “previously acknowledged as a federally recognized tribe, or is a portion that evolved out of a previously federally recognized Indian tribe,” need only establish (b) and either (a) or (c) from the list of criteria in section 83.”
Wyandot Nation of Kansas v. United States, 858 F.3d 1392 (Fed. Cir. 2017). · cites it 2× “” 25 C.F.R. § 83.12 (a). The regulations also provide guidance as to what needs to be shown to gain recognition.”
Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Cmty. of Oregon v. Jewell, 75 F. Supp. 3d 387 (D.D.C. 2014). · cites it 2× “” Id. at 24 . The Secretary’s failure to do so, Clark County Plaintiffs contend, voids the Secretary’s decision that she was authorized to take the Parcel into trust on behalf of the Cowlitz.”
Carcieri v. Norton, 398 F.3d 22 (1st Cir. 2005). “” 25 C.F.R. 83.12(a) (2004). These statutory and regulatory provisions make clear that the Secretary’s IRA authority extends to the Narragansett Indian Tribe regardless of the status of its acknowledgment in 1934.”
Koi Nation of N. Cal. v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior, 361 F. Supp. 3d 14 (D.C. Cir. 2019). “2002) ; see also 25 C.F.R. § 83.12 (previously codified at 25 C.”
Samish Indian Nation v. United States, 657 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2011). “” 25 C.F.R. § 83.12 (c) (2011). A tribe may participate only “after it meets the specific program requirements, if any, and upon appropriation of funds by Congress.”
Carcieri v. Kempthorne, 497 F.3d 15 (1st Cir. 2005). “" 25 C.F.R. 83.12(a) (2004). 45 These statutory and regulatory provisions make clear that the Secretary's IRA authority extends to the Narragansett Indian Tribe regardless of the status of its acknowledgment in 1934.”
Michigan Gambling Opposition (MichGO) v. Norton, 477 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2007). “” 25 C.F.R. § 83.12 (a). 6 . Plaintiff asserts that a two-step process must be undertaken before intervenor can engage in gaming on the Bradley Property.”
Narragansett Indian Tribe of Rhode Island v. Rhode Island, 296 F. Supp. 2d 153 (D.R.I. 2003). “25 C.F.R. § 83.12 (a). 2 . As set forth in detail at p.”
Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Cmty. of Oregon v. Jewell, 830 F.3d 754 (D.C. Cir. 2016). · cites it 5× “, and 25 C.F.R. § 83.12 (b) (1994), based on the Secretary’s alleged failure independently to verify the Tribe’s business plan and membership figures.”
Samish Indian Nation v. United States, 657 F.3d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011). “” 25 C.F.R. § 83.12 (c) (2011). A tribe may participate only “after it meets the specific program requirements, if any, and upon appropriation of funds by Congress.”
Show all 15 citing cases →
— 25 C.F.R. § 83.12(a) — 3 cases
Carcieri v. Norton, 398 F.3d 22 (1st Cir. 2005). “” 25 C.F.R. 83.12(a) (2004). These statutory and regulatory provisions make clear that the Secretary’s IRA authority extends to the Narragansett Indian Tribe regardless of the status of its acknowledgment in 1934.”
Carcieri v. Kempthorne, 497 F.3d 15 (1st Cir. 2005). “" 25 C.F.R. 83.12(a) (2004). 45 These statutory and regulatory provisions make clear that the Secretary's IRA authority extends to the Narragansett Indian Tribe regardless of the status of its acknowledgment in 1934.”
Carcieri v. Kempthorne, 497 F.3d 15 (1st Cir. 2005).
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.