25 U.S.C. § 3302

Findings

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

The Congress finds that—(1) there are increasing numbers of Indian students qualifying for postsecondary education, and there are increasing numbers desiring to go to postsecondary institutions;(2) the needs of these students far outpace the resources available currently;(3) Indian tribes have shown an increasing interest in administering programs serving these individuals and making decisions on these programs reflecting their determinations of the tribal and human needs;(4) the contracting process under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act [25 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.] has provided a mechanism for the majority of the tribes to assume control over this program from the Bureau of Indian Affairs;(5) however, inherent limitations in the contracting philosophy and mechanism, coupled with cumbersome administrative procedures developed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs have effectively limited the efficiency and effectiveness of these programs;(6) the provision of these services in the most effective and efficient form possible is necessary for tribes, the country, and the individuals to be served; and(7) these services are part of the Federal Government’s continuing trust responsibility to provide education services to American Indian and Alaska Natives.(Pub. L. 102–325, title XIII, § 1312, July 23, 1992, 106 Stat. 798.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

The Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, referred to in par. (4), is Pub. L. 93–638, Jan. 4, 1975, 88 Stat. 2203, which is classified principally to chapter 46 (§ 5301 et seq.) of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 5301 of this title and Tables.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases, 1974–2008 · leading case: Samish Indian Nation v. United States

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Samish Indian Nation v. United States (2008) uscfc “” 25 U.S.C. § 3302 (7). Next, as part of the Indian Alcohol and Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act of 1986, Congress found that “the Federal Government has a historical relationship and unique legal and moral responsibility to Indian tribes and their members” and…”

James Schantz v. Ada White Lightning and Leroy White Lightning, Jack F. Schaff v. Ada White Lightning and Leroy White Li (1974) ca8 “In order to determine whether the tribal court’s exclusion of non-Indians violates 25 U.S.C. § 3302 (8) (1970), a properly presented claim must be brought based on that contention.”

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.