25 U.S.C. § 476
Transferred
[transferred]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 332
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1955–2025 · leading case: Akiachak Native Cmty. v. United States Dep't of the Interior, 827 F.3d 100 (D.C. Cir. 2016).
Akiachak Native Cmty. v. United States Dep't of the Interior, 827 F.3d 100 (D.C. Cir. 2016). “707 , 709 (codified at 25 U.S.C. § 476 (g)). But these ownership schemes left unresolved many outstanding land claims by Alaska Natives based on aboriginal rights, that is, “possessory rights of Indian tribes to their aboriginal lands .”
Butte Cnty., Cal. v. Hogen, 613 F.3d 190 (D.C. Cir. 2010). “25 U.S.C. § 476 (f). [1] The County has long been involved with Interior regarding the Tribe's efforts to locate a parcel of land qualifying as a "restoration of lands" under section 20 of the IGRA.”
Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49 (1978). “[22] By the terms of its Constitution, adopted in 1935 and approved by the Secretary of the Interior in accordance with the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, 25 U. S. C. § 476 , judicial authority in the Santa Clara Pueblo is vested in its tribal council.”
Mackinac Tribe v. Sally Jewell, 829 F.3d 754 (D.C. Cir. 2016). “2 PER CURIAM: Plaintiff-Appellant Mackinac Tribe brought an action in federal district court to compel the Secretary of the Interior to convene an election allowing the Tribe to organize under the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA), 25 U.S.C. § 476 (a). Although the Mackinac Tribe…”
Sandra Thomas v. United States of Am., 189 F.3d 662 (7th Cir. 1999). “25 U.S.C. § 476 . In February 1992, the Secretary conducted such an election to ratify two amendments to the tribal constitution of the Lac Courte Oreilles (“LCO”) Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians.”
California Valley Miwok Tribe v. United States, 515 F.3d 1262 (D.C. Cir. 2008). “See 25 U.S.C. § 476 . This case involves an attempt by a small cluster of people within the California Valley Miwok tribe (“CVM”) to organize a tribal government under the Act.”
Atkinson v. Haldane, 569 P.2d 151 (Alaska 1977). “987 , 25 U.S.C. § 476 ; they were ratified by the Community on December 19, 1944.”
Merrion v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe, 455 U.S. 130 (1982). “987 , 25 U. S. C. § 476 . In 1968, the Tribe revised its Constitution to specify: “The inherent powers of the Jicarilla Apache Tribe, including those conferred by Section 16 of the Act of June 18, 1934 ( 48 Stat.”
Mackinac Tribe v. Jewell, 87 F. Supp. 3d 127 (D.D.C. 2015). “491, 496-97 (2003) (“The underlying premise of this requirement — to demonstrate continuous tribal existence of the group — is that a tribe is a political, not a racial, classification.”). 2 Once the Interior Department establishes that a tribe is a recognized political entity…”
Akiachak Native Cmty. v. United States Dep't of Interior, 995 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2013). “1 thereby violate the anti-discrimination provision codified at 25 U.S.C. § 476 (g). The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs, but withheld a ruling on the appropriate remedy.”
Akiachak Native Cmty. v. United States Dep't of Interior, 935 F. Supp. 2d 195 (D.D.C. 2013). “The plaintiffs argue that this exclusion of Alaska Natives — and only Alaska Natives — from the land-into-trust application process is void under 25 U.S.C. § 476 (g), which nullifies regulations that discriminate among Indian tribes.”
United States v. State of Washington, 459 F. Supp. 1020 (W.D. Wash. 1978). “987 , 25 U.S.C. § 476 . Its membership is determined in accordance with its Constitution and Bylaws approved by the Acting Secretary of the Interior on January 27, 1936.”
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.