No purchase, grant, lease, or other conveyance of lands, or of any title or claim thereto, from any Indian nation or tribe of Indians, shall be of any validity in law or equity, unless the same be made by treaty or convention entered into pursuant to the Constitution. Every person who, not being employed under the authority of the United States, attempts to negotiate such treaty or convention, directly or indirectly, or to treat with any such nation or tribe of Indians for the title or purchase of any lands by them held or claimed, is liable to a penalty of $1,000. The agent of any State who may be present at any treaty held with Indians under the authority of the United States, in the presence and with the approbation of the commissioner of the United States appointed to hold the same, may, however, propose to, and adjust with, the Indians the compensation to be made for their claim to lands within such State, which shall be extinguished by treaty.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
303
cases (
22 in the last 5 years), 1929–2026 · leading case:
Carcieri v. Salazar, 555 U.S. 379 (2009).
Carcieri v. Salazar, 555 U.S. 379 (2009).
· cites it 5× “2 Title 25 U. S. C. §177 provides, in pertinent part, that “[n]o pur chase, grant, lease, or other conveyance of lands, or of any title or claim thereto, from any Indian nation or tribe of Indians, shall be of any validity in law or equity, unless the same be made by treaty or…”
Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Pueblo of Santa Ana, 472 U.S. 237 (1985).
· cites it 6× “730 , 25 U. S. C. § 177 . The prevailing opinion concerning the unique status of the Pueblo Indians was drawn into question as a result of the attempt by federal authorities to regulate the liquor trade with the Pueblos.”
Fed. Power Comm'n v. Tuscarora Indian Nation, 362 U.S. 99 (1960).
· cites it 10× “The Tuscarora Indian Nation insists that even if its lands are embraced by the terms of § 21 of the Federal Power Act, they still may not be taken for public use "without the express consent of Congress referring specifically to those lands," because of the provisions of 25 U.…”
Countyof Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation of NY, 470 U.S. 226 (1985).
· cites it 4× “All of the subsequent versions of the Nonintercourse Act, including that now in force, 25 U. S. C. § 177 , contain substantially the same restraint on the alienation of Indian lands.”
Oneida Indian Nation v. Cnty. of Oneida, 414 U.S. 661 (1974).
· cites it 6× “Although "[d]ecision would ultimately turn on whether the deed of 1795 complied with what is now 25 U. S. C. § 177 and what the consequences would be if it did not," id.”
Oneida Indian Nation of NY v. City of Sherrill, NY, 145 F. Supp. 2d 226 (N.D.N.Y. 2001).
· cites it 8× “Commonly referred to as the Noninter-course Act, now codified at 25 U.S.C. § 177 , this legislation prohibited conveyance of Indian lands except by treaty with the federal government.”
Oneida Indian Nation v. Cnty. of Oneida, 617 F.3d 114 (2d Cir. 2010).
· cites it 6× “137 (1790) (codified as amended at 25 U.S.C. § 177 ), which prohibits sales of tribal land without the consent of the United States.”
Oneida Indian Nation v. Madison Cnty., 665 F.3d 408 (2d Cir. 2011).
· cites it 3× “Although the district court rested its grant of judgment in each case on four independent grounds — (1) the OIN’s tribal sovereign immunity from suit; (2) federal restrictions on the alienation of tribal lands under the Nonintercourse Act, 25 U.S.C. § 177 ; (3) inadequate notice…”
Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida v. USA, 716 F.3d 535 (11th Cir. 2013).
· cites it 4× “The Tribe alleged two claims: (1) the State of Florida wrongfully flooded the Reservation Land based on illegally granted easements to various state agencies — including the SFWMD — in violation of the Trade and Intercourse Act, 25 U.S.C. § 177 , 32 and (2) the State of Florida…”
South Carolina v. Catawba Indian Tribe, Inc., 476 U.S. 498 (1986).
· cites it 4× “Since 1790, the Nonintercourse Act, now codified as reenacted and amended at 25 U. S. C. § 177 , has broadly prohibited the sale of Indian land without the consent of the Federal Government.”
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.