25 U.S.C. § 323
Rights-of-way for all purposes across any Indian lands
The Secretary of the Interior be, and he is empowered to grant rights-of-way for all purposes, subject to such conditions as he may prescribe, over and across any lands now or hereafter held in trust by the United States for individual Indians or Indian tribes, communities, bands, or nations, or any lands now or hereafter owned, subject to restrictions against alienation, by individual Indians or Indian tribes, communities, bands, or nations, including the lands belonging to the Pueblo Indians in New Mexico, and any other lands heretofore or hereafter acquired or set aside for the use and benefit of the Indians.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 47
cases (12 in the last 5 years), 1954–2026 · leading case: United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (1983).
United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (1983). “[25] The Secretary is empowered to grant rights-of-way for all purposes across trust land, 25 U. S. C. § 323 , provided that he obtains the consent of the tribal or individual Indian landowner, § 324, [26] and that the Indian owners are paid appropriate compensation, § 325.”
Davilla v. Enable Midstream Partners L.P., 913 F.3d 959 (10th Cir. 2019). “" 25 U.S.C. § 323 . But the Secretary could not do so unilaterally.”
Swinomish Indian Tribal Cmty. v. Bnsf Ry. Co., 951 F.3d 1142 (9th Cir. 2020). “17 , 25 U.S.C. §§ 323–28, “empower[s]” the Secretary of the Interior to “grant rights-of-way for all purposes, subject to such conditions as he may prescribe, over and across any lands now or hereafter held in trust by the United States for individual Indians or Indian tribes,…”
Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Pueblo of Santa Ana, 472 U.S. 237 (1985). “17 -18, 25 U. S. C. §§ 323 , 324. Five of the nineteen Pueblo Tribes organized under the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, see n.”
Seneca Nation v. Hochul, 58 F.4th 664 (2d Cir. 2023). “5 Joint App’x 11 ( 25 U.S.C. § 323 and 25 C.F.R. Part 169). 5 No.”
Tetlin Native Corp. v. State, 759 P.2d 528 (Alaska 1988). “" In 1964 the BIA formally granted the State's request for the five material sites pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 323 (1982) [5] and 25 C.F.R. *531 part 161 (1958).”
Coast Indian Cmty. v. United States, 213 Ct. Cl. 129 (Ct. Cl. 1977). “It is claimed that the BIA conveyed the right-of-way pursuant to the authority vested in the Secretary of the Interior by 25 U.S.C. §323 (1970), enacted in 1948, and delegated by him to the BIA and its local agencies.”
Sierra Club v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 990 F. Supp. 2d 9 (D.D.C. 2013). “The BIA’s Consideration Of Easements For Construction On Indian Land That The Federal Government Holds In Trust Under 25 U.S.C. § 323 , the BIA “is empowered to grant rights-of-way for all purposes, subject to such conditions as [the Secretary of the Interior] may prescribe,…”
Darby Dev. Co., Inc. v. United States, 112 F.4th 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2024). “As to authority, the plaintiff “claimed that the BIA conveyed the right-of-way pursuant to the author- ity vested in the Secretary of the Interior by 25 U.S.C. § 323 (1970).” Id. at 650 . The court found that “[s]ection 323, it is true, conferred broad powers on the Secretary…”
Begay v. Pub. Serv. Co. of NM, 710 F. Supp. 2d 1161 (D.N.M. 2010). “Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 323 , the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to grant rights-of-way for all purposes, subject to such conditions as he may prescribe, over and across lands held in trust by the United States for individual Indians or Indian tribes, communities,…”
Citizens Against Casino Gambling v. Chaudhuri, 802 F.3d 267 (2d Cir. 2015). “§§ 323 (Secretary's authority to grant rights-of-way), 407d (Secretary’s authority to charge purchasers of timber for special services),-483a (individual Indian’s power to execute mortgage or trust deed subject to approval by the Secretary), 1321 (limitation on tribe’s ability…”
Salt River Proj. Agr. Imp. & Power v. Lee, 672 F.3d 1176 (9th Cir. 2012). “heory that the Navajo Nation lacked authority to regulate employment matters at the power plant under (1) the terms of a 1969 lease between the Navajo Nation and Salt River Project for the land on which the power plant is located, which waived the tribe's right to regulate…”
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.