The Bureau of Indian Affairs, under the supervision of the Secretary of the Interior, shall direct, supervise, and expend such moneys as Congress may from time to time appropriate, for the benefit, care, and assistance of the Indians throughout the United States for the following purposes:
General support and civilization, including education.
For relief of distress and conservation of health.
For industrial assistance and advancement and general administration of Indian property.
For extension, improvement, operation, and maintenance of existing Indian irrigation systems and for development of water supplies.
For the enlargement, extension, improvement, and repair of the buildings and grounds of existing plants and projects.
For the employment of inspectors, supervisors, superintendents, clerks, field matrons, farmers, physicians, Indian police, Indian judges, and other employees.
For the suppression of traffic in intoxicating liquor and deleterious drugs.
For the purchase of horse-drawn and motor-propelled passenger-carrying vehicles for official use.
And for general and incidental expenses in connection with the administration of Indian affairs.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this section or any other law, postsecondary schools administered by the Secretary of the Interior for Indians, and which meet the definition of an “institution of higher education” under section 101 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 [20 U.S.C. 1001], shall be eligible to participate in and receive appropriated funds under any program authorized by the Higher Education Act of 1965 [20 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.] or any other applicable program for the benefit of institutions of higher education, community colleges, or postsecondary educational institutions.
Notes of Decisions
Samish Indian Nation v. United States, 419 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
· cites it 3× “) These statutes include, among others, the Snyder Act, 25 U.S.C. § 13 . (FAC ¶¶ 5(b), 28.) Finally, in a third count, the Samish alleged that since their federal recognition in 1996 the government has continued to withhold funds that should have been provided under the same…”
Morton v. Ruiz, 415 U.S. 199 (1974).
· cites it 3× “The Court of Appeals’ reversal of the District Court’s summary judgment for the Secretary was on the ground that the Manual’s residency limitation was inconsistent with the broad language of the Snyder Act, 25 U.”
Texas v. United States, 497 F.3d 491 (5th Cir. 2007).
· cites it 2× “2d 270 (1974) (payment of general assistance benefits authorized under 25 U.S.C. § 13 ); Seminole Nation v. United States, 316 U.”
Lincoln v. Vigil, 508 U.S. 182 (1993).
· cites it 2× “208 , as amended, 25 U. S. C. § 13 , and the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, 90 Stat.”
White Mountain Apache Tribe v. United States, 249 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
· cites it 2× “” The Tribe alleged that its claim arose under the 1960 Act, as well as the Snyder Act (codified at 25 U.S.C. § 13 ), the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (codified at 16 U.”
Hobbs Ex. Rel. Hobbs v. Zenderman, 579 F.3d 1171 (10th Cir. 2009).
· cites it 2× “" 25 U.S.C. § 13 . The BIA limited benefits eligibility to Indians residing on a reservation or otherwise under BIA jurisdiction based on a provision in the Indian Affairs Manual, which was unpublished and not generally available to the public.”
Ford v. Moore, 1996 S.D. 112, 552 N.W.2d 850.
· cites it 4× “[ 25 U.S.C. § 13 ]...." 25 U.S.C. § 1616 (a)(1995).”
Erikson v. United States, 12 Cl. Ct. 754 (Ct. Cl. 1987).
· cites it 6× “1 Second, plaintiff alleges that he was an intended third party beneficiary of the funding agreement between the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Tribe.”
Navajo Health Found.-Sage Mem'l Hosp., Inc. v. Burwell, 263 F. Supp. 3d 1083 (D.N.M. 2016).
· cites it 2× “A congressional majority, however, wished for the funding to continue and passed the Snyder Act, 25 U.S.C. § 13 , to give the Bureau of Indian Affairs broad discretion to direct programs that would benefit American Indians’ health: The Bureau of Indian Affairs, under the…”
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.