25 U.S.C. § 479
Transferred
[transferred]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 100
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1958–2025 · leading case: Carcieri v. Salazar, 555 U.S. 379 (2009).
Carcieri v. Salazar, 555 U.S. 379 (2009). “As relevant here, the District Court determined that the plain language of 25 U. S. C. §479 defines “Indian” to include members of all tribes in existence in 1934, but does not require a tribe to have been federally recognized on that date.”
Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde Cmty. of Oregon v. Jewell, 830 F.3d 552 (D.C. Cir. 2016). “, to conclude that the Cowlitz , are a “recognized Indian tribe now under Federal jurisdiction,” 25 U.S.C. § 479 . The Secretary also reasonably determined that the Cowlitz meet the “initial-reservation” exception to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (“IGRA”), 25 U.”
Washington v. Confederated Tribes of the Colville Indian Reservation, 447 U.S. 134 (1980). “988 , 25 U. S. C. § 479 , does not demonstrate a congressional intent to exempt such Indians from state taxation.”
Carcieri v. Kempthorne, 497 F.3d 15 (1st Cir. 2005). “2 As to the IRA, the State argues that the Narragansetts do not meet the definition of “Indian” contained in 25 U.S.C. § 479 . The pertinent definition recognizes, inter alia, “all persons of Indian descent who are members of any recognized Indian tribe *22 now under Federal…”
Rice v. Cayetano, 528 U.S. 495 (2000). “§ 479 ("The term `Indian' as used in this Act shall include all persons of Indian descent who are members of any recognized Indian tribe now under Federal jurisdiction, and all persons who are descendants of such members who were, on June 1, 1934, residing within the present…”
Stand Up for California! v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior, 919 F. Supp. 2d 51 (D.D.C. 2013). “” See 25 U.S.C. § 479 (defining “tribe” as “any Indian tribe, organized band, pueblo, or the Indians residing on one reservation”).”
Upstate Citizens for Equality, Inc. v. United States, 841 F.3d 556 (2d Cir. 2016). “” 25 U.S.C. § 479 . 20 At the time of its enactment, tribes could opt out of the IRA’s provisions, including § 5, by vote at a special election.”
Mackinac Tribe v. Sally Jewell, 829 F.3d 754 (D.C. Cir. 2016). “” 25 U.S.C. § 479 (emphasis added). The Supreme Court has interpreted the phrase “now under Federal jurisdiction” to refer only to tribes that were under federal jurisdiction in 1934—the time of the IRA’s enactment.”
Sandy Lake Band v. United States, 714 F.3d 1098 (8th Cir. 2013). “The district court held that the phrase “recognized Indian tribe” set forth in 25 U.S.C. § 479 was ambiguous and that the BIA’s definition of the term “tribe” set forth in 25 C.”
Carcieri v. Norton, 398 F.3d 22 (1st Cir. 2005). “25 U.S.C. § 479 (emphasis added). The State argues that the term “now” in § 479 should be read as meaning “June 1934” and not “today.”
Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Cmty. of Oregon v. Jewell, 75 F. Supp. 3d 387 (D.D.C. 2014). “” 25 U.S.C. § 479 . The Secretary’s decision determined that the Cowlitz was “recognized” under the IRA.”
United States v. Damien Zepeda, 792 F.3d 1103 (9th Cir. 2015). “, 25 U.S.C. § 479 (defining the term “Indian” in the Indian Reorganization Act to include “all persons of Indian descent who are members of any recognized Indian tribe now under Federal jurisdiction, and all persons who are descendants of such members who were, on June 1, 1934,…”
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.