U.S. Code » Title 25 » Chapter CHAPTER 6— GOVERNMENT OF INDIAN COUNTRY AND RESERVATIONS › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER III— TRADERS WITH INDIANS

25 U.S.C. § 262

Persons permitted to trade with Indians

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

Any person desiring to trade with the Indians on any Indian reservation shall, upon establishing the fact, to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, that he is a proper person to engage in such trade, be permitted to do so under such rules and regulations as the Commissioner of Indian Affairs may prescribe for the protection of said Indians.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1958–2021 · leading case: Central MacHinery Co. v. Arizona State Tax Commission
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Central MacHinery Co. v. Arizona State Tax Commission (1980) scotus · cites it 8× “25 U. S. C. § 262 . The President is authorized to prohibit the introduction of any article into Indian land.”
Rice v. Rehner (1983) scotus · cites it 2× “1009 , 25 U. S. C. § 262 . Pursuant to this statutory authority, the Commissioner of Indian Affairs has promulgated detailed regulations governing the licensing and conduct of Indian traders.”
Oneida Nation of New York v. Cuomo (2011) ca2 “Tax Law § 480 , and a federally-licensed Indian Trader, see 25 U.S.C. § 262 . Under New York law, the Tax Commissioner may cancel or suspend a wholesaler’s state license for, among other things, “committing] fraud or deceit in his .”
Williams v. Lee (1959) scotus “1009 , 25 U. S. C. §262 , provides: “Any person desiring to trade with the Indians on any Indian reservation shall, upon establishing the fact, to the satisfaction *218 of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, that he is a proper person to engage in such trade, be permitted to do…”
Department of Taxation and Finance of NY v. Milhelm Attea & Bros. (1994) scotus “7 The other Indian trader provisions state that persons who establish their fitness to trade with Indians to the BIA’s satisfaction shall be permitted to do so, 25 U. S. C. §262 , authorize the President to prohibit the introduction of goods into Indian country and to revoke…”
Warren Trading Post Co. v. Arizona Tax Commission (1965) scotus “1066 , as amended, 25 U. S. C. § 262 (1958 ed.), provides: “Any person desiring to trade with the Indians on any Indian reservation shall, upon establishing the fact, to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, that he is a proper person to engage in such trade,…”
Big Sandy Rancheria Enters. v. Rob Bonta (2021) ca9 “BONTA failure to apply for an Indian trader license under 25 U.S.C. § 262 and 25 C.F.R. § 140.9 to California’s regulatory scheme or contend that holding the licenses required under California law would somehow prevent it from obtaining an Indian trader license under federal law.”
East Oakland-Fruitvale Planning Council, a Nonprofit California Corporation v. Donald Rumsfeld, Director, Office of Econ (1972) ca9 “” 25 U.S.C. § 262 . The Commissioner contender!, and the district court held, that under these statutes whether to issue regulations, and what the regulations should provide, were matters committed to the Commissioner’s discretion, and hence not reviewable under the…”
Warren Trading Post Company v. Moore (1963) ariz · cites it 2× “In my opinion, Arizona lacks the power to impose a tax on the privilege of conducting commerce with the Indians — an area of commerce delegated exclusively to the federal government in the Commerce Clause and a privilege granted solely by the Commissioner of Indian Affairs under…”
Herzog Bros. Trucking, Inc. v. State Tax Commission (1988) ny “, "[a]ny person desiring to trade with the Indians on any Indian reservation” ( 25 USC § 262 ), and that under Federal statutes, and the Supreme Court decisions construing them, the State’s action imposed an impermissible burden upon trade with reservation Indians, an area…”
Williams v. Lee (1958) ariz “” 25 U.S. C.A. § 262. Among the regulations adopted is the following: “All trade with Indians shall be confined to the premises specified in the license, except the buying of livestock and livestock products, which shall be covered by special permits issued by the superintendent.”
In Re Colwash (1960) wash “The decision that the tribal court, and not the courts of the state of Arizona, had jurisdiction of his action (on an open account against an Indian living on the reservation) was based upon *202 the treaty with Navajos made in 1868. The court said (p.”
Show all 18 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.