All lands allotted to Indians in severalty, except allotments made to members of the Five Civilized Tribes and Osage Indians in Oklahoma, may by said allottee be leased for mining purposes for any term of years as may be deemed advisable by the Secretary of the Interior; and the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to perform any and all acts and make such rules and regulations as may be necessary for the purpose of carrying the provisions of this section into full force and effect: Provided, That if the said allottee is deceased and the heirs to or devisees of any interest in the allotment have not been determined, or, if determined, some or all of them cannot be located, the Secretary of the Interior may offer for sale leases for mining purposes to the highest responsible qualified bidder, at public auction, or on sealed bids, after notice and advertisement, upon such terms and conditions as the Secretary of the Interior may prescribe. The Secretary of the Interior shall have the right to reject all bids whenever in his judgment the interests of the Indians will be served by so doing, and to readvertise such lease for sale.
Notes of Decisions
Indep. Petroleum Ass'n of Am. v. Bruce Babbitt, 92 F.3d 1248 (D.C. Cir. 1996).
· cites it 4× “, and for production on Indian tribal and allotted lands under 25 U.S.C. §§ 396 , 396a-396g. Certain DOI leases include royalty provisions which calculate royalties as a percentage of the “amount or value of the production saved, removed, or sold” by the lessee.”
Two Shields v. United States, 820 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
· cites it 6× “620 (1998) (“Fort Berthold Act”) (amending 25 U.S.C. § 396 ). This approval step is “intended to ensure that Indian mineral owners desir *1328 ing to have their resources developed are assured that they will be developed in a manner that maximizes [the Indian owners’] best…”
Navajo Nation v. United States, 46 Fed. Cl. 217 (Fed. Cl. 2000).
· cites it 3× “According to plaintiff, by this approval the Secretary breached fiduciary duties owed the Navajo Nation under the Indian Mineral Leasing Act of 1938, 25 U.S.C. § 396 et seq. (IMLA) and related treaties and regulations, and breached contractual obligations under the coal lease…”
K2 Am. Corp. v. Roland Oil & Gas, LLC, 653 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2011).
“In Peabody Coal, we reviewed precedents touching on whether the federal regulation and approval of a lease gives rise to a federal question sufficient for “arising under” jurisdiction.”
Navajo Nation v. United States, 263 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
· cites it 2× “BACKGROUND The United States, through the Secretary of the Interior and the Interior Department’s Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), supervises and regulates the development and sale of mineral resources on Indian reservation lands, pursuant to the Indian Mineral Leasing Act of…”
White Mountain Apache Tribe v. United States, 249 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
“2d 602 (1988), this court concluded that the Indian Long Term Leasing Act, 25 U.S.C. § 396 , and the Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act, 30 U.”
Poafpybitty v. Skelly Oil Co., 390 U.S. 365 (1968).
· cites it 2× “The leasing of allotted land for mining purposes “by said allottee” is expressly authorized by 25 U. S. C. § 396 . Although the approval of the Secretary is required, he is not the lessor and he cannot grant the lease on his own authority.”
Navajo Nation v. United States, 347 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
· cites it 2× “2001), this court held that the Indian Mineral Leasing Act of 1938, codified at 25 U.S.C. § 396 et seq. (“IMLA”), imposes a fiduciary duty upon the United States, the breach of which could result in money damages.”
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.