U.S. Code » Title 25 » Chapter CHAPTER 44— NATIVE AMERICAN BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT, TRADE PROMOTION, AND TOURISM

25 U.S.C. § 2

FINDINGS; PURPOSES.

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 25 CasesGoogle Scholar
“(a)Findings.—Congress finds that—“(1) despite the availability of abundant natural resources on Indian lands and a rich cultural legacy that accords great value to self-determination, self-reliance, and independence, Native Americans suffer rates of unemployment, poverty, poor health, substandard housing, and associated social ills which are greater than the rates for any other group in the United States;“(2) the capacity of Indian tribes to build strong Indian tribal governments and vigorous economies is hindered by the inability of Indian tribes to engage communities that surround Indian lands and outside investors in economic activities conducted on Indian lands;“(3) beginning in 1970, with the issuance by the Nixon Administration of a special message to Congress on Indian Affairs, each President has reaffirmed the special government-to-government relationship between Indian tribes and the United States; and“(4) the United States has an obligation to assist Indian tribes with the creation of appropriate economic and political conditions with respect to Indian lands to—“(A) encourage investment from outside sources that do not originate with the Indian tribes; and“(B) facilitate economic development on Indian lands.“(b)Purposes.—The purposes of this Act are as follows:“(1) To provide for a comprehensive review of the laws (including regulations) that affect investment and business decisions concerning activities conducted on Indian lands.“(2) To determine the extent to which those laws unnecessarily or inappropriately impair—“(A) investment and business development on Indian lands; or“(B) the financial stability and management efficiency of Indian tribal governments.“(3) To establish an authority to conduct the review under paragraph (1) and report findings and recommendations that result from the review to Congress and the President.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 136 cases (13 in the last 5 years), 1927–2025 · leading case: Texas v. United States
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Texas v. United States (2007) ca5 · cites it 24× “See Class III Gaming Procedures, 64 Fed.Reg. 17,535-02, 17,536 (Apr.”
Cayuga Nation v. Bernhardt (2019) cadc · cites it 5× “But, under 25 U.S.C. § 2 , the Secretary of the Interior has the authority to manage "all Indian affairs and [ ] all matters arising out of Indian relations.”
Carcieri v. Salazar (2009) scotus · cites it 2× “all matters arising out of Indian relations,” 25 U. S. C. §2 , and to “prescribe such regulations as he may think fit for carrying into effect the various provisions of any act relating to Indian affairs,” §9.”
Samish Indian Nation v. United States (2005) cafc · cites it 2× “, and the Snyder Act, 25 U.S.C. §§ 2 , 13, are not money-mandating for purposes of the Samish claims.”
Washington v. Washington State Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Assn. (1979) scotus · cites it 2× “The Indians' fishing rights and responsibilities have instead been the subject of separate regulations promulgated by the Interior Department, under its general Indian powers, 25 U. S. C. §§ 2 , 9; see 25 CFR § 256.11 et seq.”
Tiffany Aguayo v. S.M.R. Jewell (2016) ca9 · cites it 4× “” 25 U.S.C. § 2 . Thus, Defendants contend that because the enabling statute is so general, there is “no law to apply” and their actions are “committed to agency discretion by law.”
Santa Rosa Band of Indians v. Kings County (1976) ca9 · cites it 3× “Rule-making authority for the “management of all Indian affairs and of all matters arising out of Indian relations” is conferred by 25 U.S.C. § 2 ; 25 U.S.C. § 9 delegates rule-making authority to “effect the various provisions of any act relating to Indian affairs .”
Mackinac Tribe v. Sally Jewell (2016) cadc · cites it 2× “7 Our decisions in James and Muwekma Ohlone teach that, when a court is asked to decide whether a group claiming to be a currently recognized tribe is entitled to be treated as such, the court should for prudential reasons refrain from deciding that question until the Department…”
Miami Nation of Indians of Indiana, Inc. v. United States Department of the Interior (2001) ca7 · cites it 2× “See 25 U.S.C. §§ 2 , 9. In 1978, the Department of the Interior promulgated a regulation that sets forth such criteria.”
McNabb v. United States (2002) uscfc · cites it 3× “” 25 U.S.C. § 2 (1994). Congress has established the Bureau of Indian Affairs within the Department of the Interior, under the direction of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs .”
Hopi Tribe v. United States (2002) uscfc · cites it 2× “Department of Interior Prior to 1974, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (“BIA”) had not allocated funds for a tribe’s private attorney fees.”
James Clay v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (2021) ca11 “” Even assuming the chairman’s status as a “designated representative,” we find no support for his claimed authority to definitively interpret unambiguous acts of Congress.”
Show all 136 citing cases →
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.