U.S. Code » Title 25 » Chapter CHAPTER 39— AMERICAN INDIAN AGRICULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

25 U.S.C. § 3701

Findings

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 25 CasesGoogle Scholar
The Congress finds and declares that—(1) the United States and Indian tribes have a government to government relationship;(2) the United States has a trust responsibility to protect, conserve, utilize, and manage Indian agricultural lands consistent with its fiduciary obligation and its unique relationship with Indian tribes;(3) Indian agricultural lands are renewable and manageable natural resources which are vital to the economic, social, and cultural welfare of many Indian tribes and their members; and(4) development and management of Indian agricultural lands in accordance with integrated resource management plans will ensure proper management of Indian agricultural lands and will produce increased economic returns, enhance Indian self-determination, promote employment opportunities, and improve the social and economic well-being of Indian and surrounding communities.(Pub. L. 103–177, § 2, Dec. 3, 1993, 107 Stat. 2011.)Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesShort Title

Pub. L. 103–177, § 1, Dec. 3, 1993, 107 Stat. 2011, provided that: “This Act [enacting this chapter] may be cited as the ‘American Indian Agricultural Resource Management Act’.”

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2011–2023 · leading case: Brackeen v. Haaland, 994 F.3d 249 (5th Cir. 2021).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Brackeen v. Haaland, 994 F.3d 249 (5th Cir. 2021). “§ 3101 (finding that “the United States has a trust responsibility toward forest lands”); American Indian Agricultural Resources Management Act, 25 U.S.C. § 3701 (finding that “the United States has a trust responsibility to protect, conserve, utilize, and manage Indian…”
El Paso Nat. Gas Co. v. United States, 750 F.3d 863 (D.C. Cir. 2014). “Although the Act mentions the Government’s “trust responsibility” in stating its findings and purposes, 25 U.S.C. §§ 3701 , 3702, Congress was quite clear that “[n]othing in this chapter shall be construed to diminish or expand the trust responsibility of the United States…”
El Paso Nat. Gas Co. v. United States, 774 F. Supp. 2d 40 (D.D.C. 2011). · cites it 6× “, the Ameri *43 can Indian Agriculture Resources Management Act (“AIARMA”), 25 U.S.C. § 3701 , et seq., the Indian Lands Open Dump Cleanup Act (“ILODCA”), 25 U.”
Temple v. Cleve Her Many Horses, 163 F. Supp. 3d 602 (D.S.D. 2016). · cites it 2× “]” 25 U.S.C. § 3701 (2). The court finds 25 U.”
Moody v. United States, 931 F.3d 1136 (Fed. Cir. 2019). “" 25 U.S.C. § 3701 (2). To carry out this trust responsibility "the Secretary [of the Interior is authorized] to take part in the management of Indian agricultural lands, with the participation of the beneficial owners of the land, in a manner consistent with the trust…”
El Paso Nat. Gas Co. v. United States of Am. (D.D.C. 2011). · cites it 6× “, the American Indian Agriculture Resources Management Act ("AIARMA"), 25 U.S.C. §§ 3701 , et seq., the Indian Lands Open Dump Cleanup Act ("ILODCA"), 25 U.”
Moody v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2017). · cites it 2× “16-107C (Filed: October 13, 2017) FOR PUBLICATION ************************************* VERNON MOODY and ANITA * MOODY, * * Partial Motion to Dismiss under RCFC 12 (b)(1) * and 12 (b)(6); American Indian Agricultural * Resources Management Act, 25 U.S.C. §§ 3701 Plaintiffs, * et…”
Moody v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2017). · cites it 2× “16-107C (Filed: October 13, 2017) FOR PUBLICATION ************************************* VERNON MOODY and ANITA * MOODY, * * Partial Motion to Dismiss under RCFC 12 (b)(1) * and 12 (b)(6); American Indian Agricultural * Resources Management Act, 25 U.S.C. §§ 3701 Plaintiffs, * et…”
Birdbear v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2022). · cites it 2× “Plaintiffs’ response to the government’s cross-motion for summary judgment, however, relies exclusively on 25 U.S.C. § 3701 (2), which states that “the United States has a trust responsibility to protect, conserve, utilize, and manage Indian agricultural lands consistent with…”
Temple v. Lawrence Roberts (D.S.D. 2023). “Specifically, Judge Viken held that the district court had jurisdiction to review actions taken by defendants pursuant to the American Indian Agriculture Resource Management Act (“AIARMA”), 25 U.S.C. § 3701 et seq., and the regulations governing trespass issued thereunder as…”
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.