U.S. Code » Title 25 » Chapter CHAPTER 32— NATIVE AMERICAN GRAVES PROTECTION AND REPATRIATION

25 U.S.C. § 3013

Enforcement

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

The United States district courts shall have jurisdiction over any action brought by any person alleging a violation of this chapter and shall have the authority to issue such orders as may be necessary to enforce the provisions of this chapter.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 22 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1995–2026 · leading case: Timothy White v. Univ. of California, 765 F.3d 1010 (9th Cir. 2014).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Timothy White v. Univ. of California, 765 F.3d 1010 (9th Cir. 2014). · cites it 2× “” 25 U.S.C. § 3013 . However, that section does not contain any language expressly abrogating tribal sovereign immunity.”
Romero v. Universal City TX, 256 F.3d 349 (5th Cir. 2001). “” 25 U.S.C. § 3013 . Despite this broad enforcement power, the district court correctly held that Castro’s claims suffer from a fundamental flaw — that the human remains were found on municipal rather than federal or tribal land.”
Bonnichsen v. United States, Dep't of the Army, 969 F. Supp. 614 (D. Or. 1997). · cites it 5× “, and perhaps 25 U.S.C. § 3013 as well. (That issue is discussed below.”
Robinson v. Salazar, 838 F. Supp. 2d 1006 (E.D. Cal. 2012). · cites it 2× “NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. § 3013 , provides district courts with jurisdiction over “any action brought by any person alleging a violation of this chapter ____” 12 The Ninth Circuit has held that the “any person” language in § 3013 “may not be interpreted restrictively to mean only ‘any…”
Robinson v. Salazar, 885 F. Supp. 2d 1002 (E.D. Cal. 2012). · cites it 2× “NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. § 3013 , provides district courts with jurisdiction over “any action brought by any person alleging a violation of this chapter .”
Barron v. Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, 373 F. Supp. 3d 1232 (D. Alaska 2019). “2014) ; see 25 U.S.C. § 3013 . White , 765 F.3d at 1024 .”
Pueblo of San Ildefonso v. Daniel Ridlon & Regents of the Univ. of California, 103 F.3d 936 (10th Cir. 1996). · cites it 2× “§ 1291 and NAGPRA’s jurisdictional and repatriation provisions, 25 U.S.C. §§ 3013 and 3005(a) respectively.”
John Thorpe v. Borough of Jim Thorpe, 770 F.3d 255 (3rd Cir. 2014). “25 U.S.C. § 3013 . 12 This Court exercises plenary review over the District Court’s finding of law that NAGPRA applies to Thorpe’s burial.”
San Carlos Apache Tribe v. United States, 272 F. Supp. 2d 860 (D. Ariz. 2003). “There is a private right of action under NAGPRA, pursuant to the following statutory language: The United States district courts shall have jurisdiction over any action brought by any person alleging a violation of this chapter and shall have the authority to issue such orders…”
Idrogo v. United States Army, 18 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 1998). · cites it 2× “Lastly, 25 U.S.C. § 3013 does not bestow standing on either of the Plaintiffs.”
Geronimo v. Obama, 725 F. Supp. 2d 182 (D.D.C. 2010). “” 25 U.S.C. § 3013 . However, while § 3013 expressly provides for a private right of action, NAGPRA does not provide a waiver of sovereign immunity.”
Yankton Sioux Tribe v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 209 F. Supp. 2d 1008 (D.S.D. 2002). · cites it 2× “DECISION The Court has jurisdiction in this case pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 3013 and 28 U.S.C. § 1362 . Venue is proper under 28-U.”
Show all 22 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.