U.S. Code » Title 25 » Chapter CHAPTER 23— DEVELOPMENT OF TRIBAL MINERAL RESOURCES

25 U.S.C. § 2102

Minerals Agreements

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 25 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Authorization for tribes; approval by Secretary

Any Indian tribe, subject to the approval of the Secretary and any limitation or provision contained in its constitution or charter, may enter into any joint venture, operating, production sharing, service, managerial, lease or other agreement, or any amendment, supplement or other modification of such agreement (hereinafter referred to as a “Minerals Agreement”) providing for the exploration for, or extraction, processing, or other development of, oil, gas, uranium, coal, geothermal, or other energy or nonenergy mineral resources (hereinafter referred to as “mineral resources”) in which such Indian tribe owns a beneficial or restricted interest, or providing for the sale or other disposition of the production or products of such mineral resources.

(b) Inclusion of individual holdings; approval by parties and Secretary

Any Indian owning a beneficial or restricted interest in mineral resources may include such resources in a tribal Minerals Agreement subject to the concurrence of the parties and a finding by the Secretary that such participation is in the best interest of the Indian.

(Pub. L. 97–382, § 3, Dec. 22, 1982, 96 Stat. 1938.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1986–2018 · leading case: Ute Mountain Ute Tribe v. Rodriguez
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Ute Mountain Ute Tribe v. Rodriguez (2011) ca10 · cites it 2× “See 25 U.S.C. § 2102 (a). The district court concluded that the IMDA exhibited "no Congressional intent to prohibit—or to allow—state taxation," just as the Supreme Court found with the IMLA.”
State of Utah v. Babbitt (1993) utd · cites it 2× “” 25 U.S.C. § 2102 (emphasis added). The IBIA concluded that defining “lease” broadly for purposes of the Act of 1933 would be inconsistent with Congress’ use of the language “lease or other agreement” in the IMDA Thus, the IBIA reasoned, Congress could not have intended that…”
Quantum Exploration, Inc. v. William Clark, Secretary, United States Department of the Interior (1986) ca9 “IMDA states that “[a]ny Indian tribe, subject to the approval of the Secretary ..”
Utah v. Babbitt (1995) ca10 “25 U.S.C.A. § 2102 (a) (West 1986). Defendants argue that because both “lease” and “operating agreement” are listed, it is not proper to consider an operating agreement as sometimes falling within the definition of a lease.”
United States Ex Rel. Wright v. Comstock Resources, Inc. (2011) ca5 “”); 25 U.S.C. § 2102 (a) (stating that an Indian tribe’s entry into a lease agreement is “subject to the approval of the Secretary”).”
UTE Indian Tribe of the Uintah v. Lawrence (2018) utd · cites it 2× “" 25 U.S.C. § 2102 (a). Such agreements require approval of the Secretary of the Interior and are subject to "any limitation or provision" contained in a tribe's constitution or charter.”
Ute Mountain Ute Tribe v. Homans (2009) nmd · cites it 2× “BIA authority to approve agreements is granted by § 3 of the IMDA, 25 U.S.C. § 2102 , and implemented in regulations at 25 C.”
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.