8 U.S.C. § 1359
Application to American Indians born in Canada
Nothing in this subchapter shall be construed to affect the right of American Indians born in Canada to pass the borders of the United States, but such right shall extend only to persons who possess at least 50 per centum of blood of the American Indian race.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17
cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1974–2026 · leading case: Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. Coughlin, 599 U.S. 382 (2023).
Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. Coughlin, 599 U.S. 382 (2023). “, 8 U. S. C. § 1359 (setting special immigration rules for “American Indians born in Canada”); 22 CFR § 42.”
Akins v. Saxbe, 380 F. Supp. 1210 (D. Me. 1974). “In the third claim for relief, three Canadian-born Indians seek a declaratory judgment that 8 U.S.C. § 1359 exempts them from the registration and visa requirements applying to aliens under the Immigration and Naturalization laws, and request an order enjoining the Attorney…”
Commonwealth v. Tassinari, 995 N.E.2d 42 (Mass. 2013). “See 8 U.S.C. § 1359 (2006); Akins v. Saxbe, 380 F.”
Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. Coughlin, 599 U.S. 382 (2023). “, 8 U. S. C. §1359 (setting special immigration rules for “American Indians born in Canada”); 22 CFR §42.”
State v. Daniels, 16 P.3d 650 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “8 U.S.C. § 1359 ; Akins v. Saxbe, 380 F.Supp.”
United States v. Randolph Gerard Curnew, 788 F.2d 1335 (8th Cir. 1986). “As a basis for establishing this affirmative defense, Curnew relies on 8 U.S.C. § 1359 . Section 1359 provides: Nothing in this subchapter shall * * * affect the right of American Indians born in Canada to pass the borders of the United States, but such right shall extend only…”
State v. Daniels, 104 Wash. App. 271 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “8 U.S.C. § 1359 ; Akins v. Saxbe, 380 F. Supp.”
United States v. Malachowski, 623 F. App'x 555 (2d Cir. 2015). “Malachowski invokes 8 U.S.C. § 1359 , which allows American Indians born in Canada to freely cross the borders of the United States, and contends that he was wrongfully convicted of counts three, four, five, and six.”
United States v. Malachowski, 415 F. App'x 307 (2d Cir. 2011). “Affirmative Defense Jury Instruction Finally, Malachowski contends that the district court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the affirmative defense available pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1359 to the illegal entry charges.”
Craghtten v. USA (9th Cir. 2026). “He then sued the government, claiming violations of the Second Amendment, Article III of the Jay Treaty (as codified by 8 U.S.C. § 1359 and 8 C.F.R. § 289 ), and 18 U.”
Hills v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2022). “Article III’s guarantee of free passage is codified through section 289 of the Immigration and Naturalization Act at 8 U.S.C. § 1359 , enshrining the right of “American Indians born in Canada to pass the borders of the United States.”
Powell v. New York State Dep't of Educ. (E.D.N.Y 2022). “Section 289 of the Immigration and Naturalization Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1359 , codifies Article III’s guarantee of free passage by permitting “American Indians born in Canada to pass the borders of the United States.”
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.