U.S. Code » Title 25 » Chapter CHAPTER 12— LEASE, SALE, OR SURRENDER OF ALLOTTED OR UNALLOTTED LANDS

25 U.S.C. § 398d

Changes in boundaries of Executive order reservations

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

Changes in the boundaries of reservations created by Executive order, proclamation, or otherwise for the use and occupation of Indians shall not be made except by Act of Congress.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases, 1929–2019 · leading case: Healing v. Jones, 210 F. Supp. 125 (D. Ariz. 1962).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Healing v. Jones, 210 F. Supp. 125 (D. Ariz. 1962). · cites it 5× “1347 , 25 U.S.C. § 398d, changes in the boundaries of reservations created by executive order for the use and occupation of Indians were prohibited, except by Act of Congress.”
Yankton Sioux Tribe v. Podhradsky, 529 F. Supp. 2d 1040 (D.S.D. 2007). · cites it 6× “) In that decision, the Court determined the following issues are to be decided in this remand proceeding: (1) Whether the boundaries of the Yankton Sioux Reservation were frozen by the enactment of 25 U.S.C. § 398d, which the Tribe refers to as “the 1927 Act”; (2) If the…”
Yankton Sioux Tribe v. Podhradsky, 606 F.3d 994 (8th Cir. 2010). “1347 (codified as amended at 25 U.S.C. § 398d) (1927 Act), and the 1934 IRA—froze the boundaries of the reservation.”
Sekaquaptewa v. MacDonald, 448 F. Supp. 1183 (D. Ariz. 1978). · cites it 2× “1347 (codified at 25 U.S.C. § 398d), which froze the boundaries of all executive order reservations, recognized Navajo title in other executive order reservations within the 1934 Act boundaries.”
Pittsburg & Midway Coal Mining Co. v. Kee Ike Yazzie, Roselyn D. John, Romero Brown, Lewis Calamity, Peter J. Korth, & David C. Brunt, 909 F.2d 1387 (10th Cir. 1990). “1347 (codified at 25 U.S.C. § 398d). When lands are withdrawn by EO and then restored by an EO authorized by Congress, information about executive intent is relevant to the establishment of congressional intent.”
Chemehuevi Indian Tribe v. John McMahon, 934 F.3d 1076 (9th Cir. 2019). “1347 (codified at 25 U.S.C. § 398d); see S. Pac. Transp., 543 F.”
Yankton Sioux Tribe v. Podhradsky, 577 F.3d 951 (8th Cir. 2009). “1347 (codified as amended at 25 U.S.C. § 398d) (1927 Act), and the 1934 IRA—froze the boundaries of the reservation.”
United States v. S. Pac. Transp. Co., 543 F.2d 676 (9th Cir. 1976). “1347 (codified at 25 U.S.C. § 398d). . See note 13 supra. .”
United States v. Consol. Mines & Smelting Co., 455 F.2d 432 (9th Cir. 1971). “The Act of March 3, 1927, 25 U.S.C. § 398d provides: “Changes in the boundaries of reservations created by Executive order, proclamation, or otherwise for the use and occupation of Indians shall not be made except by Act of Congress: Provided, That this shall not apply to…”
Masayesva v. Zah, 792 F. Supp. 1165 (D. Ariz. 1992). “25 U.S.C. § 398d, Ch. 299, § 4, 44 Stat. 1347 (1927).”
United States v. Taylor, 33 F.2d 608 (W.D. Wash. 1929). “1347 (25 USCA § 398d), provides: “* * * Changes in the boundaries of reservations created by Executive Order, proclamation, or otherwise for the use and occupation of Indians shall not be made except by act of Congress: Provided, that this shall not apply to temporary…”
Yankton Sioux Tribe v. Scott Podhradsky (8th Cir. 2009). “1347 (codified as amended at 25 U.S.C. § 398d) (1927 Act), and the 1934 IRA—froze the boundaries of the reservation.”
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.