25 U.S.C. § 81

Contracts and agreements with Indian tribes

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

(a) DefinitionsIn this section:(1) The term “Indian lands” means lands the title to which is held by the United States in trust for an Indian tribe or lands the title to which is held by an Indian tribe subject to a restriction by the United States against alienation.(2) The term “Indian tribe” has the meaning given that term in section 5304(e) of this title.(3) The term “Secretary” means the Secretary of the Interior.(b) Approval

No agreement or contract with an Indian tribe that encumbers Indian lands for a period of 7 or more years shall be valid unless that agreement or contract bears the approval of the Secretary of the Interior or a designee of the Secretary.

Subsection (b) shall not apply to any agreement or contract that the Secretary (or a designee of the Secretary) determines is not covered under that subsection.

(d) Unapproved agreementsThe Secretary (or a designee of the Secretary) shall refuse to approve an agreement or contract that is covered under subsection (b) if the Secretary (or a designee of the Secretary) determines that the agreement or contract—(1) violates Federal law; or(2) does not include a provision that—(A) provides for remedies in the case of a breach of the agreement or contract;(B) references a tribal code, ordinance, or ruling of a court of competent jurisdiction that discloses the right of the Indian tribe to assert sovereign immunity as a defense in an action brought against the Indian tribe; or(C) includes an express waiver of the right of the Indian tribe to assert sovereign immunity as a defense in an action brought against the Indian tribe (including a waiver that limits the nature of relief that may be provided or the jurisdiction of a court with respect to such an action).(e) Regulations

Not later than 180 days after March 14, 2000, the Secretary shall issue regulations for identifying types of agreements or contracts that are not covered under subsection (b).

(f) ConstructionNothing in this section shall be construed to—(1) require the Secretary to approve a contract for legal services by an attorney;(2) amend or repeal the authority of the National Indian Gaming Commission under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.); or(3) alter or amend any ordinance, resolution, or charter of an Indian tribe that requires approval by the Secretary of any action by that Indian tribe.(R.S. § 2103; Pub. L. 85–770, Aug. 27, 1958, 72 Stat. 927; Pub. L. 106–179, § 2, Mar. 14, 2000, 114 Stat. 46.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, referred to in subsec. (f)(2), is Pub. L. 100–497, Oct. 17, 1988, 102 Stat. 2467, which is classified principally to chapter 29 (§ 2701 et seq.) of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 2701 of this title and Tables.

Codification

R.S. § 2103 derived from acts Mar. 3, 1871, ch. 120, § 3, 16 Stat. 570; May 21, 1872, ch. 177, §§ 1, 2, 17 Stat. 136.

Amendments

2000—Pub. L. 106–179 amended section generally, substituting present provisions for provisions which required agreements with Indian tribes or Indians to be in writing, to bear the approval of the Secretary, to contain the names of all parties in interest, to state the time and place of making, purpose, and contingencies, and to have a fixed time limit to run, and provisions which declared agreements made in violation of this section to be null and void and which authorized recovery of amounts in excess of approved amounts, with one half of recovered amounts to be paid into the Treasury.

1958—Par. Second. Pub. L. 85–770 struck out requirement that contracts with Indian tribes be executed before a judge of a court of record.

Par. Sixth. Pub. L. 85–770 struck out par. Sixth enumerating contractual elements to be certified to by the judge.

Executive DocumentsTransfer of Functions

For transfer of functions of other officers, employees, and agencies of Department of the Interior, with certain exceptions, to Secretary of the Interior, with power to delegate, see Reorg. Plan No. 3 of 1950, §§ 1, 2, eff. May 24, 1950, 15 F.R. 3174, 64 Stat. 1262, set out in the Appendix to Title 5, Government Organization and Employees.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 206 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1939–2024 · leading case: United States Ex Rel. Robinson Rancheria Citizens Council v. Borneo, Inc. Clear Lake Indian Bingo Ltd. Am. Arbitration Ass'n Herman Schner, 971 F.2d 244 (9th Cir. 1992).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

United States Ex Rel. Robinson Rancheria Citizens Council v. Borneo, Inc. Clear Lake Indian Bingo Ltd. Am. Arbitration Ass'n Herman Schner, 971 F.2d 244 (9th Cir. 1992). · cites it 12× “FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judge: Robinson Ranchería Citizens Council (Robinson) appeals from the district court’s dismissal of its claims for injunctive and declaratory relief under 25 U.S.C. § 81 , which governs contracts between Indians and non-Indians relating to tribal lands.”

Guidiville Band of Pomo Indians v. NGV Gaming, Ltd., 531 F.3d 767 (9th Cir. 2008). · cites it 22× “SHADUR, Senior District Judge: This appeal presents the single, seemingly straightforward question whether the word "is" really means "is," at least as that word is employed in 25 U.S.C. § 81 . [1] At the core of the present dispute, that statute requires the Secretary of the…”

Barona Grp. of the Capitan Grande Band of Mission Indians v. Am. Mgmt. & Amusement, Inc., 840 F.2d 1394 (9th Cir. 1988). · cites it 19× “The Band filed a complaint in district court to have the agreement declared null and void under 25 U.S.C. § 81 (1982) because it did not have the approval of the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA).”

Barona Grp. of the Capitan Grande Band of Mission Indians v. Am. Mgmt. & Amusement, Inc., 824 F.2d 710 (9th Cir. 1987). · cites it 19× “The Band filed a complaint in district court to have the agreement declared null and void under 25 U.S.C. § 81 (1982) because it did not have the approval of the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA).”

Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Cmty., 134 S. Ct. 2024 (2014). · cites it 4× “46 (codified at 25 U. S. C. §81 (d)(2)); see also F. Cohen, Handbook of Federal Indian Law §7.”

Altheimer & Gray, a P'ship v. Sioux Mfg. Corp., 983 F.2d 803 (7th Cir. 1993). · cites it 10× “BACKGROUND In 1872, Congress passed what is now known as 25 U.S.C. § 81 . The statute requires contracts concerning Indian lands to be approved by the Secretary of the Interi- or.”

Contour Spa at the Hard Rock, Inc. v. Seminole Tribe of Florida, 692 F.3d 1200 (11th Cir. 2012). · cites it 11× “It is undisputed that these regulations, as well as 25 U.S.C. § 81 , apply to the putative lease, even if they had not been expressly incorporated into the lease’s terms.”

A.K. Mgmt. Co., a Michigan Corp. v. The San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, a Federally Recognized Indian Tribe, 789 F.2d 785 (9th Cir. 1986). · cites it 10× “The district court found that AK’s Management Agreement (“Agreement”) entered into with the *786 San Manuel Band of Mission Indians (“the Band”) without the approval of the Secretary of the Interior and the Commissioner of Indian Affairs was void under 25 U.S.C. § 81 (1982) 1…”

Catskill Dev., L.L.C. v. Park Place Ent. Corp., 547 F.3d 115 (2d Cir. 2008). · cites it 4× “The agreement was never signed or approved by the BIA, which, prior to the establishment of the NIGC, was the agency responsible for overseeing gaming contracts under 25 U.S.C. § 81 . Id. Three days after the agreement was signed, the contractor was notified that the Indian…”

United States of Am., Ex Rel. Maynard Bernard v. Casino Magic Corp., a Minnesota Corp. Casino Magic Am. Corp., a Minnesota Corp., 293 F.3d 419 (8th Cir. 2002). · cites it 6× “The disclaimer stated in part: The Department has reviewed this Agreement, determined that it does not constitute an agreement relative to the Tribe’s trust land or other trust assets and, therefore, this Agreement is not subject to the provisions of 25 U.S.C. § 81 . As a…”

United States Ex Rel. Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Cmty. v. Pan Am. Mgmt. Co., 616 F. Supp. 1200 (D. Minnesota 1985). · cites it 11× “munity seeks injunctive relief, declaratory judgment, damages, and an accounting, against defendants, several companies that have entered into or been assigned rights in agreements to manage the plaintiffs’ two bingo operations and individuals employed by those companies,…”

Wisconsin Winnebago Bus. Comm., Cross-Appellant v. John P. Koberstein & Ho-Chunk Mgmt. Corp., Cross-Appellees, 762 F.2d 613 (7th Cir. 1985). · cites it 9× “Koberstein and the Ho-Chunk Management Corporation, 1 appeal the determination of the district court that its Bingo Management Agreement with the Wisconsin Winnebago Business Committee is null and void under 25 U.S.C. § 81 . We affirm. I. On July 9, 1983, the Wisconsin Winnebago…”

Show all 206 citing cases →

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.