U.S. Code » Title 25 » Chapter CHAPTER 39— AMERICAN INDIAN AGRICULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER I— RANGELAND AND FARMLAND ENHANCEMENT

25 U.S.C. § 3712

Indian participation in land management activities

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 25 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Tribal recognition

The Secretary shall conduct all land management activities on Indian agricultural land in accordance with goals and objectives set forth in the approved agricultural resource management plan, in an integrated resource management plan, and in accordance with all tribal laws and ordinances, except in specific instances where such compliance would be contrary to the trust responsibility of the United States.

(b) Tribal lawsUnless otherwise prohibited by Federal law, the Secretary shall comply with tribal laws and ordinances pertaining to Indian agricultural lands, including laws regulating the environment and historic or cultural preservation, and laws or ordinances adopted by the tribal government to regulate land use or other activities under tribal jurisdiction. The Secretary shall—(1) provide assistance in the enforcement of such tribal laws;(2) provide notice of such laws to persons or entities undertaking activities on Indian agricultural lands; and(3) upon the request of an Indian tribe, require appropriate Federal officials to appear in tribal forums.(c) Waiver of regulations

In any case in which a regulation or administrative policy of the Department of the Interior conflicts with the objectives of the agricultural resource management plan provided for in section 3711 of this title, or with a tribal law, the Secretary may waive the application of such regulation or administrative policy unless such waiver would constitute a violation of a Federal statute or judicial decision or would conflict with his general trust responsibility under Federal law.

(d) Sovereign immunity

This section does not constitute a waiver of the sovereign immunity of the United States, nor does it authorize tribal justice systems to review actions of the Secretary.

(Pub. L. 103–177, title I, § 102, Dec. 3, 1993, 107 Stat. 2015.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 2011–2020 · leading case: El Paso Nat. Gas Co. v. United States, 750 F.3d 863 (D.C. Cir. 2014).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
El Paso Nat. Gas Co. v. United States, 750 F.3d 863 (D.C. Cir. 2014). · cites it 2× “5 (acknowledging that the statutory language preserving sovereign immunity “is inconsistent with a private right of action and the Nation no longer asserts that [the Indian Agricultural Act] creates one”); see also 25 U.”
Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Wash. v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 387 F. Supp. 3d 33 (D.C. Cir. 2019). “contain[ed] only a general follow-the-law directive" and "flunk[ed] SUWA 's discreteness test" (quoting 25 U.S.C. § 3712 (b) )). As the Court noted in SUWA , recognizing Plaintiffs' claim here would necessarily "mean that it would ultimately become the task of the supervising…”
El Paso Nat. Gas Co. v. United States, 774 F. Supp. 2d 40 (D.D.C. 2011). · cites it 2× “See 25 U.S.C. § 3712 (d) (“This section does not constitute a waiver of the sovereign immunity of the United States, nor does it authorize tribal justice systems to review actions of the Secretary.”
El Paso Nat. Gas Co. v. United States of Am. (D.D.C. 2011). · cites it 2× “See 25 U.S.C. § 3712 (d) ("This section does not constitute a waiver of the sovereign immunity of the United States, nor does it authorize tribal justice systems to review actions of the Secretary.”
Moody v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2017). “25 U.S.C. § 3712 (d). The Secretary has delegated his statutory authority to the BIA, which has in turn promulgated regulations governing agricultural leases on Indian land.”
Moody v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2017). “25 U.S.C. § 3712 (d). The Secretary has delegated his statutory authority to the BIA, which has in turn promulgated regulations governing agricultural leases on Indian land.”
Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Washington v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec. (D.D.C. 2019). “contain[ed] only a general follow-the-law directive” and “flunk[ed] SUWA’s discreteness test” (quoting 25 U.S.C. § 3712 (b))). As the Court noted in SUWA, recognizing Plaintiffs’ claim here would necessarily “mean that it would ultimately become the task of the supervising…”
Bannister v. United States Parole Comm'n (D.D.C. 2020). “contain[ed] only a general follow- the-law directive” and “flunk[ed] [Norton’s] discreteness test” (quoting 25 U.S.C. § 3712 (b)). To be sure, the Rehabilitation Act does provide that “[t]he head of each [Executive] agency shall promulgate such regulations as may be necessary to…”
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.