25 U.S.C. § 9
EXEMPTION FROM CHAPTER 10 OF TITLE, UNITED STATES CODE.
“The activities of the Authority conducted under this Act shall be exempt from chapter 10 of title 5, United States Code.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 29
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1971–2025 · leading case: Texas v. United States
Texas v. United States (2007)
“Beginning in 1832 and 1834, Congress explicitly authorized the President through the Secretary of the Interior to "prescribe such regulations as he may think fit for carrying into effect the various provisions of any act relating to Indian affairs, and for the settlement of the…”
State v. Sebastian (1997)
“The formulation of this standard and its use by the federal courts occurred after Congress delegated to the executive branch the power to prescribe regulations for carrying into effect statutes relating to Indian affairs, see 25 U.S.C. § 9 , and without regard to whether or not…”
Agua Caliente Tribe of Cupeno v. Tara Katuk Mac Lean Sweeney (2019)
“1 ); see also 25 U.S.C. § 9 (delegating authority to the executive to “prescribe such regulations as [the President] may think fit for carrying into effect the various provisions of any act relating to Indian affairs, and for settlement of the accounts of Indian affairs”).”
Morton v. Ruiz (1974)
“” 25 U. S. C. § 9 . This provision relates back to the Act of June 30, 1834, § 17, 4 Stat.”
Golden Hill Paugussett Tribe of Indians v. Weicker (1994)
“735 , 738 (codified as amended at 25 U.S.C. § 9 (1988)). At the same time Congress estabhshed the Department of Indian Affairs, predecessor to the BIA.”
Santa Rosa Band of Indians v. Kings County (1976)
“§ 2 ; 25 U.S.C. § 9 delegates rule-making authority to “effect the various provisions of any act relating to Indian affairs .”
Swallows Holding, Ltd. v. Comm'r (2006)
“232, 235 (1936); and • 25 U.S.C. § 9 : “The President may prescribe such regulations as he may think fit for carrying into effect the various provisions of any act relating to Indian affairs, and for the settlement of the accounts of Indian affairs,” Morton v.”
Gristede's Foods, Inc. v. Unkechuage Nation (2009)
“at 59 (citing 25 U.S.C. § 9 ; Candelaria, 271 U.S. at 442 , 46 S.”
Miami Nation of Indians of Indiana, Inc. v. Babbitt (1995)
“25 U.S.C. § 9 , enacted in 1834, states that: The President may prescribe such regulations as he may think fit for carrying into effect the various provisions of any act relating to Indian affairs, and for settlement of the accounts of Indian affairs.”
United States v. Brown (1971)
“17339 DESIGNATING SECRETARY OF INTERIOR TO ACCEPT RETROCESSION OF JURISDICTION BY STATE By virtue of the authority vested in me by section 465 of the Revised Statutes ( 25 U.S.C. § 9 ) [section 9 of this' title] and as President of the United States, the Secretary of the…”
Oregon v. Norton (2003)
“See 25 U.S.C. § 9 (“The President may prescribe such regulations as he may think fit for carrying into effect the various provisions of any act relating to Indian affairs, and for the settlement of the accounts of Indian affairs.”
Robinson v. Salazar (2012)
“25 U.S.C. § 9 provides: The President may prescribe such regulations as he may think fit for carrying *1037 into effect the various provisions of any act relating to Indian affairs, and for the settlement of the accounts of Indian affairs.”
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.