25 U.S.C. § 2
Duties of Commissioner
The Commissioner of Indian Affairs shall, under the direction of the Secretary of the Interior, and agreeably to such regulations as the President may prescribe, have the management of all Indian affairs and of all matters arising out of Indian relations.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 136
cases (13 in the last 5 years), 1927–2025 · leading case: Texas v. United States, 497 F.3d 491 (5th Cir. 2007).
Texas v. United States, 497 F.3d 491 (5th Cir. 2007). “See Class III Gaming Procedures, 64 Fed.Reg. 17,535-02, 17,536 (Apr.”
Cayuga Nation v. Bernhardt, 374 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2019). “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, 555 U.S. 379 (2009). “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, 419 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2005). “, and the Snyder Act, 25 U.S.C. §§ 2 , 13, are not money-mandating for purposes of the Samish claims.”
Washington v. Washington State Com. Passenger Fishing Vessel Assn., 443 U.S. 658 (1979). “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, 827 F.3d 1213 (9th Cir. 2016). “” 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 Cnty., 532 F.2d 655 (9th Cir. 1976). “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, 829 F.3d 754 (D.C. Cir. 2016). “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 Dep't of the Interior, 255 F.3d 342 (7th Cir. 2001). “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, 54 Fed. Cl. 759 (Fed. Cl. 2002). “” 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, 55 Fed. Cl. 81 (Fed. Cl. 2002). “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. Comm'r, 990 F.3d 1296 (11th Cir. 2021). “” 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.”
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.