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 A—General Provisions

25 C.F.R. § 83.6

What are the Department's duties?

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

(a) The Department will publish in the Federal Register, by January 30 each year, a list of all Indian tribes which the Secretary recognizes to be eligible for the special programs and services provided by the United States to Indians because of their status as Indians, in accordance with the Federally Recognized Indian Tribe List Act of 1994. The list may be published more frequently, if the Assistant Secretary deems it necessary.

(b) OFA will maintain guidelines limited to general suggestions on how and where to conduct research. The guidelines may be supplemented or updated as necessary. OFA will also make available examples of portions of documented petitions in the preferred format, though OFA will accept other formats.

(c) OFA will, upon request, give prospective petitioners suggestions and advice on how to prepare the documented petition. OFA will not be responsible for the actual research on behalf of the petitioner.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 25 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1987–2025 · leading case: Muwekma Ohlone Tribe v. Kenneth Salazar, 708 F.3d 209 (D.C. Cir. 2013).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Muwekma Ohlone Tribe v. Kenneth Salazar, 708 F.3d 209 (D.C. Cir. 2013). · cites it 3× “of Appellant 55, and also required that Muwekma provide “conclusive proof’ rather than merely a “reasonable likelihood of the validity of the facts relating to [the Part 83 criteria],” 25 C.F.R. § 83.6 (d). Yet nowhere in its Final Determination does Interior apply such tests.”
Muwekma Ohlone Tribe v. Salazar, 813 F. Supp. 2d 170 (D.D.C. 2011). · cites it 5× “” 25 C.F.R. § 83.6 (e). After evaluating all of the evidence proffered by a petitioner, should the Department conclude that the evidence “demonstrates that it does not meet one or more criteria,” or if “there is insufficient evidence that it meets one or more of the criteria,”…”
Alvarado v. Table Mountain Rancheria, 509 F.3d 1008 (9th Cir. 2007). · cites it 2× “On December 14, 1983, the Secretary of the Interior published a notice in the Federal Register, pursuant to 25 C.F.R. § 83.6 (b), designating the TMR as a federally recognized “Indian tribal entity” eligible to receive services from the BIA.”
Agua Caliente Tribe of Cupeno v. Tara Katuk Mac Lean Sweeney, 932 F.3d 1207 (9th Cir. 2019). “25 C.F.R. § 83.6 (a); Indian 14 AGUA CALIENTE TRIBE V.”
Frank B. James v. United States Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 824 F.2d 1132 (D.C. Cir. 1987). “The Department of the Interior’s Branch of Acknowledgment and Research was established for determining whether groups seeking tribal recognition actually constitute Indian tribes and presumably to determine which tribes have previously obtained federal recognition, see 25 C.”
Mackinac Tribe v. Jewell, 87 F. Supp. 3d 127 (D.D.C. 2015). “1 The procedures — called the “Part 83 Process” — allow any Indian group to apply for federal recognition by submitting a petition to the Department of the Interior with “detailed, specific evidence,” 25 C.F.R. § 83.6 , that proves the group is a “political and social community…”
Leland Neal Lapier v. Jack McCormick Warden, Montana State Prison, 986 F.2d 303 (9th Cir. 1993). “The list of acknowledged tribes is published pursuant to 25 C.F.R. § 83.6 (b) (1992). Section 83.2 establishes that The purpose of this part is to establish a departmental procedure and policy for acknowledging that certain American Indian tribes exist.”
Kahawaiolaa v. Norton, 386 F.3d 1271 (9th Cir. 2004). “1987) (citing 25 C.F.R. § 83.6 (b)); see also 25 C.F.R.”
United Tribe of Shawnee Indians v. United States, 55 F. Supp. 2d 1238 (D. Kan. 1999). · cites it 2× “See 25 C.F.R. § 83.6 (b) (requiring certification by petitioning group’s governing body).”
Miami Nation of Indians of Indiana v. Babbitt, 112 F. Supp. 2d 742 (N.D. Ind. 2000). “25 C.F.R. § 83.6 (d). On July 12, 1990, the Assistant Secretary of the Interior issued a preliminary decision tentatively concluding that the Miamis hadn’t met the regulatory criteria.”
Ramapough Mountain Indians v. Norton, 25 F. App'x 2 (D.C. Cir. 2001). · cites it 2× “” 25 C.F.R. § 83.6 (c), (d). The Bureau of Indian Affairs elaborated on these standards when it stated that “a criterion is not met if the available evidence is too limited to establish it, even if there is no evidence contradicting facts asserted by the petitioner.”
Stand Up for California! v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior (D.D.C. 2016). · cites it 3× “The United States further agreed to recognize the North Fork Tribe as an Indian entity and to include the Tribe “on the Bureau of Indian Affairs Federal Register list of recognized tribal entities pursuant to 25 CFR, Section 83.6(b),” with entitlement “to any of the benefits or…”
Show all 25 citing cases →
— 25 C.F.R. § 83.6(b) — 5 cases
Alvarado v. Table Mountain Rancheria, 509 F.3d 1008 (9th Cir. 2007). “On December 14, 1983, the Secretary of the Interior published a notice in the Federal Register, pursuant to 25 C.F.R. § 83.6 (b), designating the TMR as a federally recognized “Indian tribal entity” eligible to receive services from the BIA.”
Stand Up for California! v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior (D.D.C. 2016). “The United States further agreed to recognize the North Fork Tribe as an Indian entity and to include the Tribe “on the Bureau of Indian Affairs Federal Register list of recognized tribal entities pursuant to 25 CFR, Section 83.6(b),” with entitlement “to any of the benefits or…”
Stand Up for California! v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior (D.D.C. 2016).
Table Mountain Rancheria Ass'n v. Andrus (N.D. Cal. 2025).
Alvarado v. Table Mountain (9th Cir. 2007).
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.