25 C.F.R. § 83.8
May the deadlines in this part be extended?
(a) The AS-IA may extend any of the deadlines in this part upon a finding of good cause.
(b) For deadlines applicable to the Department, AS-IA may extend the deadlines upon the consent of the petitioner.
(c) If AS-IA grants a time extension, it will notify the petitioner and those listed in § 83.22(d).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1998–2025 · leading case: Muwekma Ohlone Tribe v. Salazar, 813 F. Supp. 2d 170 (D.D.C. 2011).
Muwekma Ohlone Tribe v. Salazar, 813 F. Supp. 2d 170 (D.D.C. 2011). “25 C.F.R. § 83.8 (a). Under the modified criteria, petitioning Native American entities that can provide substantial evidence of “[Unambiguous previous [fjederal acknowledgment,” id.”
Muwekma Ohlone Tribe v. Kenneth Salazar, 708 F.3d 209 (D.C. Cir. 2013). “See 25 C.F.R. § 83.8 (a) (“Unambiguous previous Federal acknowledgment is acceptable evidence of the tribal character of a petitioner to the date of the last such previous acknowledgment.”
Muwekma Ohlone Tribe v. Kempthorne, 452 F. Supp. 2d 105 (D.D.C. 2006). “” 25 C.F.R. § 83.8 (a). Under the modified criteria, a previously acknowledged tribe needs only demonstrate, inter alia, (1) that it has been identified as an American Indian entity on a substantially continuous basis “since the point of [its] last [fjederal acknowledgment,” 25…”
Muwekma Tribe v. Babbitt, 133 F. Supp. 2d 42 (D.D.C. 2001). “under 25 C.F.R. § 83.8 that it had prior Federal recognition after 1900 and that its current members are representative of and descend from that previously recognized tribal entity.”
Robinson v. Salazar, 885 F. Supp. 2d 1002 (E.D. Cal. 2012). “” 25 C.F.R. § 83.8 (a). Under the modified criteria, a previously acknowledged tribe needp only demonstrate, inter alia, (1) that it has been identified as an American Indian entity on a substantially continuous basis “since the point of [its] last [fjederal acknowledgment,” 25…”
Koi Nation of N. Cal. v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior, 361 F. Supp. 3d 14 (D.C. Cir. 2019). “12 (previously codified at 25 C.F.R. § 83.8 ). For eligibility under IGRA's restored lands exception, as implemented in 25 C.”
Mdewakanton Sioux Indians of Minnesota v. Jewell, 264 F. Supp. 3d 116 (D.D.C. 2017). “” (citing 25 C.F.R. § 83.8 (a)); see also Mackinac, 829 F.”
Miami Nation of Indians of Indiana v. Babbitt, 112 F. Supp. 2d 742 (N.D. Ind. 2000). “The Miamis believe the 1994 regulations present a lighter burden because a previously acknowledged tribe has to prove the criteria for shorter time periods: since the last federal acknowledgment for Indian identity, 25 C.F.R. § 83.8 (d)(1) (1994), and for the present for…”
United Tribe of Shawnee Indians v. United States, 55 F. Supp. 2d 1238 (D. Kan. 1999). “§ 479a-l (Secretary of Interior shall maintain list of federally recognized tribes); 25 C.F.R. § 83.8 (providing for recognition of applicant’s previous ac-knowledgement upon submission of proof of previous acknowledgement).”
Muwekma Ohlone Tribe v. Norton (D.D.C. 2011). “25 C.F.R. § 83.8 (a). Under the modified criteria, petitioning Native American entities that can provide substantial evidence of “[u]nambiguous previous [f]ederal acknowledgment,” id.”
Huron Potawatomi, Inc v. Stinger, 574 N.W.2d 706 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998). “7 as modified by 25 CFR 83.8. [60 Fed Reg 66315 (1995).] Plaintiff filed a motion for summary disposition of defendant’s counterclaim pursuant to MCR 2.”
The Duwamish Tribe v. Haaland (W.D. Wash. 2025). “On the merits of the petition, the Department found 7 that Plaintiffs could not procced under 25 C.F.R. § 83.8 (1994), as they lacked 8 substantial evidence of unambiguous federal acknowledgment.”
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.