25 U.S.C. § 2011

Policy for Indian control of Indian education

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 25 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Facilitation of Indian control

It shall be the policy of the United States acting through the Secretary, in carrying out the functions of the Bureau, to facilitate Indian control of Indian affairs in all matters relating to education.

(b) Consultation with tribes(1) In general

All actions under this Act shall be done with active consultation with tribes. The United States acting through the Secretary and tribes shall work in a government-to-government relationship to ensure quality education for all tribal members.

(2) Requirements(A) Definition of consultation

In this subsection, the term “consultation” means a process involving the open discussion and joint deliberation of all options with respect to potential issues or changes between the Bureau and all interested parties.

(B) Discussion and joint deliberationDuring discussions and joint deliberations, interested parties (including tribes and school officials) shall be given an opportunity—(i) to present issues (including proposals regarding changes in current practices or programs) that will be considered for future action by the Secretary; and(ii) to participate and discuss the options presented, or to present alternatives, with the views and concerns of the interested parties given effect unless the Secretary determines, from information available from or presented by the interested parties during one or more of the discussions and deliberations, that there is a substantial reason for another course of action.(C) Explanation by Secretary

The Secretary shall submit to any Member of Congress, within 18 days of the receipt of a written request by such Member, a written explanation of any decision made by the Secretary which is not consistent with the views of the interested parties described in subparagraph (B).

(Pub. L. 95–561, title XI, § 1131, as added Pub. L. 107–110, title X, § 1042, Jan. 8, 2002, 115 Stat. 2043.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

This Act, referred to in subsec. (b)(1), means Pub. L. 95–561, Nov. 1, 1978, 92 Stat. 2143, known as the Education Amendments of 1978. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title of 1978 Amendment note set out under section 6301 of Title 20, Education, and Tables.

Prior Provisions

A prior section 2011, Pub. L. 95–561, title XI, § 1131, as added Pub. L. 103–382, title III, § 381, Oct. 20, 1994, 108 Stat. 4001, related to policy for Indian control of Indian education, prior to the general amendment of this chapter by Pub. L. 107–110.

Another prior section 2011, Pub. L. 95–561, title XI, § 1131, Nov. 1, 1978, 92 Stat. 2322; 1978 Reorg. Plan No. 2, § 102, eff. Jan. 1, 1979, 43 F.R. 36037, 92 Stat. 3783; Pub. L. 98–511, title V, § 507(b), Oct. 19, 1984, 98 Stat. 2396; Pub. L. 100–297, title V, §§ 5112(a), (b)(1), 5114, 5115, Apr. 28, 1988, 102 Stat. 377, 378, 380; Pub. L. 100–427, § 9(a)–(c), Sept. 9, 1988, 102 Stat. 1606, related to education personnel, prior to the general amendment of this chapter by Pub. L. 103–382.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date

Section effective Jan. 8, 2002, except with respect to certain noncompetitive programs and competitive programs, see section 5 of Pub. L. 107–110, set out as a note under section 6301 of Title 20, Education.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases, 1988–2007 · leading case: Judith Volk v. Dottie Hobson, Eugene Charley, Timothy Clani, Bureau of Indian Affairs & Dep't of the Interior, 866 F.2d 1398 (Fed. Cir. 1989).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Judith Volk v. Dottie Hobson, Eugene Charley, Timothy Clani, Bureau of Indian Affairs & Dep't of the Interior, 866 F.2d 1398 (Fed. Cir. 1989). · cites it 6× “84-2418, holding that a private cause of action cannot be implied under 25 U.S.C. § 2011 (e)(1)(B), and that Volk is precluded from maintaining a Bivens action because she failed timely to exhaust administrative remedies.”

Yankton Sioux Tribe v. Kempthorne, 442 F. Supp. 2d 774 (D.S.D. 2006). · cites it 8× “See 25 U.S.C. § 2011 (b)(1) & (2); 25 C.F.R. § 32.”

Rippa v. United States, 79 Fed. Cl. 639 (Fed. Cl. 2007). · cites it 6× “* The Federal Circuit first held that the statute does not, on its face, provide for a private cause of action: Section 2011(e)(1)(B) [substantively identical to current section 2012(e)(1)(B)] provides: “In prescribing regulations to govern the discharge and conditions of…”

Dep't of Def. Dependents Schs. v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth., No. 87-1733, 863 F.2d 988 (D.C. Cir. 1988). “, Title XI of Education Amendments of 1978, 25 U.S.C. § 2011 (b)(7), (8) (1982) (distinguishing between "the payment of compensation to educators” and "the conditions of employment of educators”); The Postal Reorganization Act, Pub.”

Petrini v. United States, 19 Cl. Ct. 41 (Ct. Cl. 1989). · cites it 2× “See 25 U.S.C. § 2011 (a)(1). A *43 contract employee is subject to appointment only with the concurrence of the San Felipe Pueblo School Board.”

Smith v. Lujan, 780 F. Supp. 1275 (D. Ariz. 1991). “25 U.S.C. § 2011 (d) and (e). The Supervisor must consult with the School Board, but the Board’s powers are narrowly limited.”

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.