25 U.S.C. § 261

Power to appoint traders with Indians

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

The Commissioner of Indian Affairs shall have the sole power and authority to appoint traders to the Indian tribes and to make such rules and regulations as he may deem just and proper specifying the kind and quantity of goods and the prices at which such goods shall be sold to the Indians.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 48 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1929–2023 · leading case: Rice v. Rehner, 463 U.S. 713 (1983).
Rice v. Rehner, 463 U.S. 713 (1983). · cites it 4× “200 , 25 U. S. C. § 261 (emphasis added). A person wishing to trade with the Indians is "permitted to do so under such rules and regulations as the Commissioner *736 of Indian Affairs may prescribe," once he has established "to the satisfaction of the Commissioner .”
Big Sandy Rancheria Enters. v. Rob Bonta, 1 F.4th 710 (9th Cir. 2021). · cites it 7× “Seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, the complaint alleged that: (i) federal common law and tribal sovereignty preempt the Directory Statute as applied to the Corporation; (ii) the Indian Trader Statutes, 25 U.S.C. §§ 261–64, do so as well; (iii) federal common law and…”
Dep't of Taxation & Fin. of NY v. Milhelm Attea & Bros., 512 U.S. 61 (1994). · cites it 4× “Before New *68 York’s cigarette tax enforcement scheme went into effect, they filed separate suits in the Supreme Court in Albany County alleging that the regulations were pre-empted by the federal Indian Trader Statutes, 25 U. S. C. § 261 et seq. The trial court agreed and…”
Cent. Mach. Co. v. Arizona State Tax Comm'n, 448 U.S. 160 (1980). · cites it 4× “" 25 U. S. C. § 261 . All persons desiring to trade with Indians are subject to the Commissioner's authority.”
Washington v. Confederated Tribes of the Colville Indian Reservation, 447 U.S. 134 (1980). · cites it 2× “The Indian traders statutes, 25 U. S. C. § 261 et seq., incorporate a congressional desire comprehensively to regulate businesses selling goods to reservation Indians for cash or exchange, see Warren Trading Post Co.”
Atkinson Trading Co. v. Shirley, 532 U.S. 645 (2001). · cites it 2× “" 25 U. S. C. § 261 . Petitioner has acquired the requisite license to transact business with the Navajo Nation and therefore is subject to the regulatory strictures promulgated by the Indian Affairs Commissioner.”
Oneida Nation of New York v. Cuomo, 645 F.3d 154 (2d Cir. 2011). · cites it 2× “” 25 U.S.C. § 261 . The wholesalers argued that the federal government’s authority to regulate Indian Traders precluded New York from both limiting the quantity of tax-free cigarettes wholesalers could sell to reservation retailers and requiring wholesalers to obtain approval…”
Ramah Navajo Sch. Bd., Inc. v. Bureau of Revenue of NM, 458 U.S. 832 (1982). · cites it 2× “200 , 25 U. S. C. § 261 et seq., pre-empted the State's jurisdiction to tax the sale of farm machinery to the Indian Tribe, notwithstanding the substantial services that the State undoubtedly provided to the off-reservation activities of the non-Indian seller.”
Mashantucket Pequot Tribe v. Town of Ledyard, 722 F.3d 457 (2d Cir. 2013). · cites it 2× “The Indian Trader Statutes Do Not Bar This Tax The Tribe argues that the Indian Trader Statutes, 25 U.S.C. §§ 261 et seq., bar any state regulation in “the field of transactions with Indians occurring on reservations.”
Muscogee (Creek) Nation v. Pruitt, 669 F.3d 1159 (10th Cir. 2012). “shall have the sole powTer and authority to appoint traders to the Indian tribes and to make rules and regulations .”
SAC & Fox Nation v. Pierce, 213 F.3d 566 (10th Cir. 2000). · cites it 2× “Specifically, 25 U.S.C. § 261 states: The Commissioner of Indian Affairs shall have the sole power and authority to appoint traders to the Indian tribes and to make such rules and regulations as he may deem just and proper specifying the kind and quantity of goods and the prices…”
Warren Trading Post Co. v. Arizona Tax Comm'n, 380 U.S. 685 (1965). · cites it 2× “200 , 25 U. S. C. § 261 (1958 ed.). 1 Appellant claimed that as applied to its income from trading with reservation Indians on the reservation the state tax was invalid as (1) in violation of Art.”
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.