25 U.S.C. § 5129
Definitions
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
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19
cases (6 in the last 5 years), 2016–2024 · leading case: Cachil Dehe Band of Wintun v. Ryan Zinke, 889 F.3d 584 (9th Cir. 2018).
Cachil Dehe Band of Wintun v. Ryan Zinke, 889 F.3d 584 (9th Cir. 2018). “25 U.S.C. § 5129 , Carcieri v. Salazar, 555 U.”
Littlefield v. Mashpee Wampanoag Indian Tribe, 951 F.3d 30 (1st Cir. 2020). “The BIA's approval construed section 19 of the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 ("IRA"), 25 U.S.C. § 5129 ,1 to permit it to accept lands for the Tribe.”
Stand Up for California! v. United States Dep't of the Interior, 879 F.3d 1177 (D.C. Cir. 2018). “Stand Up next argues that even if record evidence establishes that the North Fork Rancheria’s 1934 residents belonged to an identifiable tribe “under Federal jurisdiction,” 25 U.S.C. § 5129 , the evidence is insufficient to connect the present-day North Fork to that historic…”
Agua Caliente Tribe of Cupeno v. Tara Katuk Mac Lean Sweeney, 932 F.3d 1207 (9th Cir. 2019). “Those cases, however, refer to the definition of tribe in the Reorganization Act, 25 U.S.C. § 5129 , but the definition of tribe has some fluidity across federal statutes, see Kahawaiolaa v.”
Jamul Action Comm. v. E. Sequoyah Simermeyer, 974 F.3d 984 (9th Cir. 2020). “See 25 U.S.C. § 5129 . JAC contends that because the Village is only a creation of the federal government, not an entity with inherent sovereign authority, it is not protected by tribal sovereign immunity.”
Upstate Citizens for Equality, Inc. v. United States, 841 F.3d 556 (2d Cir. 2016). “§ 479 is now codified at 25 U.S.C. § 5129 . . Early uses of the term "reservation” in the field of Indian law referred to land reserved for Indian use from an Indian cession to the federal or state government.”
Cnty. of Amador v. United States Dep't of the Interior, 872 F.3d 1012 (9th Cir. 2017). “1058 (alterations in original) (quoting 25 U.S.C. § 5129 ). As the D.C. Circuit recognized in Grande Ronde, the second and third definitions of “Indian” in § 5129 do not shed much light on the meaning of the first definition.”
Littlefield v. US Dept of the Interior, 85 F.4th 635 (1st Cir. 2023). “Appellants have abandoned any Chevron challenge to the Secretary's legal interpretation of section 19 of that statute, 25 U.S.C. § 5129 , defining the term "Indians.”
State of Alaska v. Newland (D. Alaska 2024). “§ 19 (codified at 25 U.S.C. § 5129 ). 8 Id. to any Indian tribe, organized band, pueblo, or the Indians residing on one reservation.”
Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe v. Zinke (D.D.C. 2019). “5, 6 The Secretary’s authority under the IRA is cabined by whether a tribe meets the statute’s definition of “Indian,” found in Section 19 of the statute and codified at 25 U.S.C. § 5129 : The term “Indian” as used in this Act shall include all persons of Indian descent [1] who…”
Andrew Allen v. United States (9th Cir. 2019). “To be considered a tribe, the settlement agreement required Appellants to satisfy criteria set forth in 25 U.S.C. § 5129 (formerly 25 U.S.C. § 479 ) and 25 C.”
Upstate Citizens for Equality, Inc. v. United States, 839 F.3d 556 (2d Cir. 2016). “§ 479 is now codified at 25 U.S.C. § 5129 . . Early uses of the term "reservation” in the field of Indian law referred to land reserved for Indian use from an Indian cession to the federal or state government.”
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.