25 C.F.R. § 83.3
Who does this part apply to?
This part applies only to indigenous entities that are not federally recognized Indian tribes.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 24
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1983–2021 · leading case: Bd. of Equalization v. Alaska Native Bhd. & Sisterhood, Camp No. 14, 666 P.2d 1015 (Alaska 1983).
Bd. of Equalization v. Alaska Native Bhd. & Sisterhood, Camp No. 14, 666 P.2d 1015 (Alaska 1983). “25 C.F.R. § 83.3 (b), however, delimits the scope of the regulations as follows: This part does not apply to Indian tribes, organized bands .”
Muwekma Ohlone Tribe v. Kenneth Salazar, 708 F.3d 209 (D.C. Cir. 2013). “” 25 C.F.R. § 83.3 (a). It is available to groups that are not “already acknowledged” or “receiving services from the Bureau of Indian Affairs” (BIA).”
Kahawaiolaa v. Norton, 386 F.3d 1271 (9th Cir. 2004). “" 25 C.F.R. 83.3(a). The regulations define the "continental United States" as the "contiguous 48 states and Alaska.”
United States v. Damien Zepeda, 705 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2013). “” 25 C.F.R. § 83.3 . The Bureau of Indian Affairs, in accordance with the governing regulations, affords the legal designation of federal recognition to those tribes that meet its criteria.”
Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma v. Norton, 389 F.3d 1074 (10th Cir. 2004). “See 25 C.F.R. § 83.3 (b). The agency issued its final decision, after notice and comment, in September 1996.”
Wolfchild v. United States, 101 Fed. Cl. 54 (Fed. Cl. 2011). “” 25 C.F.R. § 83.3 (b). The Department of the Interior’s regulations thus show that to the extent the term Indian “group” may have a particular meaning within the legislative or regulatory context, the term does not equate to a recognized, singular’ Indian entity but rather…”
Muwekma Tribe v. Babbitt, 133 F. Supp. 2d 30 (D.D.C. 2000). “See 25 C.F.R. § 83.3 (g). On May 9, 1989, the plaintiff forwarded a letter of intent to file a petition for acknowledgment with BIA’s Branch of Acknowledgment and Research (“BAR”).”
Miami Nation of Indians of Indiana v. Babbitt, 112 F. Supp. 2d 742 (N.D. Ind. 2000). “With these concerns in mind, the 1978 regulations set forth seven criteria that a petitioning tribe had to meet (and had the burden of showing) for acknowledgment as a tribe: 83.”
Robinson v. Salazar, 838 F. Supp. 2d 1006 (E.D. Cal. 2012). “” 25 C.F.R. § 83.3 (a). The Department of Interior, the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs (“BIA”), applies its expertise to this determination and has established the Branch of Acknowledgment and Research (“BAR”) which staffs historians and anthropologists to determine whether…”
Arakaki v. Lingle, 477 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir. 2007). “at 1274 (quoting 25 C.F.R. § 83.3 (a)). The district court dismissed the suit against the Department of Interior, in part because matters of tribal recognition raise nonjusticiable political questions.”
Arakaki v. Apoliona, 423 F.3d 954 (9th Cir. 2005). “at 1274 (quoting 25 C.F.R. § 83.3 (a)). The district court dismissed the suit against the Department of Interior, in part because matters of tribal recognition raise nonjusticiable political questions.”
Robinson v. Salazar, 885 F. Supp. 2d 1002 (E.D. Cal. 2012). “” 25 C.F.R. § 83.3 (a). The Department of Interior, the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs (“BIA”), applies its expertise to this determination and has established the Branch of Acknowledgment and Research (“BAR”) which staffs historians and anthropologists to determine whether…”
— 25 C.F.R. § 83.3(a) — 2 cases
Kahawaiolaa v. Norton, 386 F.3d 1271 (9th Cir. 2004). “" 25 C.F.R. 83.3(a). The regulations define the "continental United States" as the "contiguous 48 states and Alaska.”
Kahawaiolaa v. Norton, 386 F.3d 1271 (9th Cir. 2004).
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.