The Department will not acknowledge:
(a) An association, organization, corporation, or entity of any character formed in recent times unless the entity has only changed form by recently incorporating or otherwise formalizing its existing politically autonomous community;
(b) A splinter group, political faction, community, or entity of any character that separates from the main body of a currently federally recognized Indian tribe, petitioner, or previous petitioner unless the entity can clearly demonstrate it has functioned from 1900 until the present as a politically autonomous community and meets § 83.11(f), even though some have regarded them as part of or associated in some manner with a federally recognized Indian tribe;
(c) An entity that is, or an entity whose members are, subject to congressional legislation terminating or forbidding the government-to-government relationship; or
(d) An entity that previously petitioned and was denied Federal acknowledgment under part 54 of this chapter (as it existed before March 30, 1982) or part 83 (including reconstituted, splinter, spin-off, or component groups who were once part of previously denied petitioners) unless the entity meets the conditions of §§ 83.47 through 83.49.
[80 FR 37887, July 1, 2015, as amended at 90 FR 3643, Jan. 15, 2025]
Notes of Decisions
Muwekma Tribe v. Babbitt, 133 F. Supp. 2d 42 (D.D.C. 2001).
“at 8; 25 C.F.R. § 83.4 . Thereafter, in accordance with 25 C.”
Confederated Tribes v. Steven Mnuchin, 976 F.3d 15 (D.C. Cir. 2020).
“See 25 C.F.R. § 83.4 (a). Under that regulation, which remains in effect, no ANC appears on the Secretary of the Interior’s current list of recognized Indian tribes.”
Burt Lake Band of Ottawa & Chippewa Indians v. Zinke, 304 F. Supp. 3d 70 (D.C. Cir. 2018).
“at 18; see 25 C.F.R. § 83.4 (d). The injury is particularized because the Burt Lake Band is one of the Tribes that falls squarely within the prohibition, and it is concrete because the 2015 Regulations eliminate plaintiff's opportunity to renew its effort to seek the federal…”
Muwekma Ohlone Tribe v. Salazar, 813 F. Supp. 2d 170 (D.D.C. 2011).
“See 25 C.F.R. § 83.4 (a) (“Any Indian group in the continental United States that believes it should be acknowledged as an Indian tribe .”
Golden Hill Paugussett Tribe of Indians v. Rell, 463 F. Supp. 2d 192 (D. Conn. 2006).
“Such procedures include: the filing of a letter of intent by the petitioning group (plaintiff), followed by submission of a petition with evidence to demonstrate that the group satisfies the seven tribal acknowledgment criteria, see 25 C.F.R. §§ 83.4 , 83.6; preliminary review…”
Golden Hill Paugussett Tribe v. Weicker, 839 F. Supp. 130 (D. Conn. 1993).
“Any Indian group not previously acknowledged by DOI may apply for recognition. A tribe recognized as such is entitled to federal protection, services, and benefits.”
Greene v. Babbitt, 64 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir. 1995).
“See 25 C.F.R. Part 83.4 (1978) (providing that “any Indian group in the continental United States which believes it should be acknowledged as an Indian tribe, and can satisfy the criteria in § 83.”
Burt Lake Band of Ottawa & Chippewa Indians v. Zinke (D.D.C. 2018).
“The Court finds that plaintiff was adversely affected and aggrieved by the 2015 Regulations which prohibit it from filing a renewed petition seeking to be federally recognized as an Indian Tribe.”
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.