25 U.S.C. § 175
United States attorneys to represent Indians
In all States and Territories where there are reservations or allotted Indians the United States attorney shall represent them in all suits at law and in equity.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 67
cases (32 in the last 5 years), 1953–2026 · leading case: Hopi Tribe v. United States
Hopi Tribe v. United States (2002)
“In this ease, the government did not exercise elaborate control over the land belonging to the Hopi Tribe because it did not control the presentation of the tribe’s interests in the *94 1934 reservation litigation.”
Gila River Indian Community v. Henningson, Durham & Richardson, a Nebraska Corporation, and Ranier Construction Company, (1980)
“4 The Tribe contends that the language “arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States” in section 1362 extends to all suits in which the United States could have represented an Indian tribe under 25 U.S.C. § 175 . 5 In the alternative, the Tribe contends…”
Robinson v. New Jersey Mercer County Vicinage-Family Division (2013)
“After a lengthy motions practice — during which Robinson claimed to be “entitled to representation by the United States Attorneys,” pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 175 — the District Court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and denied Robinson’s outstanding motions as moot.”
Shoshone-Bannock Tribes v. Janet Reno, Attorney General of the United States (1995)
“The provision conferring authority on the Attorney General to represent tribal interests contains no “meaningful standard” limiting her prosecutorial discretion.”
United States v. City of Tacoma, Washington (2003)
“See generally 25 U.S.C. § 175 . And the United States has an independent, governmental interest when it has not been made a party in condemnation proceedings of restricted Indian lands.”
United States v. State of Washington (1978)
“At the request of the Puyallup Tribe, which was then without private counsel in Puyallup II , the United States Attorney *1077 represented the Puyallup Tribe pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 175 and private counsel represented certain members thereof.”
Navajo Nation v. San Juan County (2019)
“Resisting this plain language, the county points out that the 1983 complaint identifies 25 U.S.C. § 175 as one of the statutes authorizing the lawsuit.”
In Re the General Adjudication of All Rights to Use Water in the Gila River System & Source (2006)
“631 (codified as amended at 25 U.S.C. § 175 (2001)). Here, the Amended Complaint expressly alleges that the Globe Equity litigation was “instituted at the suggestion of the Secretary of the Interior and by the direction and authority of the Attorney General.”
Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians v. Rogers C. B. Morton, Secretary of the Interior (1974)
“The services of the United States Attorney, whose duty to represent Indian tribes under 25 U.S.C. § 175 has been interpreted to be discretionary, see e.”
Hernandez v. United States (2010)
“Plaintiff cites to 25 U.S.C. § 175 (2006), which provides that “[i]n all States and Territories where there are reservations or allotted Indians the United States attorney shall represent them in all suits at law and in equity,” as a basis for the court to appoint him counsel.”
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community v. Arizona Sand & Rock Co. (1972)
“For the following reasons the court has determined that this court has jurisdiction, that the complaint states no grounds upon which to issue the writ of mandamus, and further that the United States is not an indispensable party.”
Fort Mojave Indian Tribe v. United States (1991)
“In addition to being a natural consequence of the creation of the trust, the United States’ authority to represent the Tribes’ interests during litigation is specifically set forth in 25 U.S.C. § 175 , which provides, in pertinent part: “In all States and Territories where there…”
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.