You are here: Home / Gaming Law / Federal Indian Law-California Specific

Federal Indian Law-California Specific

Jan. 7, 2010: Indian Lands Iowa Tribe of OK.
A discussion of Tribal jurisdiction and the exercise of governmental powers as criteria in resolving the determination that after acquired lands qualify for gaming purposes. While this determination is specific to the Iowa Tribe, the criteria helps to resolve bogus assertions of restored lands in California.
Jan. 18, 2009: Applicability of 25 USC 2719 to Ristricted Fee Lands
Even lands that are contiguous to established Reservations/Rancherias prior to 1988 fall under the general prohibition against gambling for after acquired lands.
March 1997: American Indian Treaties, A history of a Political Anomoaly by Frances Paul Prucha
American Indian affairs are much in the public mind today—hotly contested debates over such issues as Indian fishing rights, land claims, and reservation gambling hold our attention. While the unique legal status of American Indians rests on the historical treaty relationship between Indian tribes and the federal government, until now there has been no comprehensive history of these treaties and their role in American life. Francis Paul Prucha, a leading authority on the history of American Indian affairs, argues that the treaties were a political anomaly from the very beginning. The term "treaty" implies a contract between sovereign independent nations, yet Indians were always in a position of inequality and dependence as negotiators, a fact that complicates their current attempts to regain their rights and tribal sovereignty. Prucha's impeccably researched book, based on a close analysis of every treaty, makes possible a thorough understanding of a legal dilemma whose legacy is so palpably felt today.
June 1995 US DOJ Policy on Indian Sovereignty
PURPOSE: To reaffirm the Department's recognition of the sovereign status of federally recognized Indian tribes as domestic dependent nations and to reaffirm adherence to the principles of government-to-government relations; to inform Department personnel, other federal agencies, federally recognized Indian tribes, and the public of the Department's working relationships with federally recognized Indian tribes; and to guide the Department in its work in the field of Indian affairs.
Jan. 14,1994: DOI Solicitor Letter to Congressman Miller
We believe most if not all California Ranchieras are non historic tribal groups.
1978: Organization Status of Federal Recognized Indian Entities
Memorandum Dept. of the Interior To: Chief, Branch of Tribal Relations From: Patricia Simmons, Tribal Relations Specialist
1978 Memo: Services to California Indians
The Rancheria System is unique to California and generally provides small acreage in rural communities for home sites.
March 1972 American Indians and their Federal Relationships
California List of Tribes and populations
Feb. 1966: Progress Report to the Governor and State Legislature
by the Advisory Committee on Indian Affairs (Senate Bill 1007) The report covers Indians in rural and Reservations areas. The report is large and broken down into sections. Related items below have the remaining sections.
May 27, 1965: Governing Bodies of Tribal Governments
UNDER FEDERAL SUPERVISION
Map of Tribal Trust Lands
Note: Stand Up finds a few inconsistencies in the location of trust lands.
1958 Rancheria Termination Report
July 22, 1958: Senate Report to accompany H. R. 2824, 85th Congress 2d Session Report 1874, Calendar No. 1907. The bill also provides that either the Indians who hold assignments on or occupy each reservation or rancheria, or the Secretary of the Interior, shall prepare a plan for distributing the assets of these properties by (1) transfer to individual Indians, (2) selling such assets and distributing the proceeds to the Indians,(3) conveying such assets to the corporation or legal entity organized or designated by the group, or (4) conveying such assets to the group as tenants in common. The bill would affect 1, 390 Indians residing on 7,617 acres of trust land.
July 20, 1958: Field Rep Nash to Asst. Sec. Critchfield
Commissioner Collier does not want to charter the Wilton groups as it is too small. Limit chartering to groups of 100 or more members.
1952 House Rpt., 82d Cong, 2d Session
House Resolution (698) to Conduct Investigation of the Bureau of Indian Affairs
October 14, 1937: Commissioner Zimmerman to Field Rep Nash
...not desirable to incorporate small rancherias to enable loans from Revolving Credit fund.
Dec. 3, 1936: Colorado River Agency to Superintendent Gensler
Law and Order on Rancherias
April 27, 1936: Acknowledge Field Rep Nash's letter
Discussion and consideration that the BIA's entire approach in Northern is wrong and needs rethinking.
March 10, 1936: Lipps Field Rep to Commissioner Indian Affairs
Attn: Mr. Daikert and Mr. Jennings Detail letter on the state of California Rancheria Indians requesting that a Mr. Marmon be assigned to help organize the groups.
Nov. 18, 1935: Washington DC BIA Circular 3123
Memberships in Indian Tribes
Sept. 11, 1935: BIA prepared list of groups
BIA prepared a list of groups providing an estimated population that is believed to be fairly correct.
June 20, 1935: Final Tabulation Results of Referenda on Indian Reorganization Act All California Jurisdictions
April 1, 1935: Roy Nash Field Rep to Commissioner Indian Affairs
IRA issue
Sept. 29, 1934: Commissioner Collier to Field Rep. Nash
Instructions to conduct Referenda vote on the Indian Reorganization Act on Oct. 27, 1934.
August 1, 1934: Sacramento Agency from Commissioner Collier
Commissioner Collier requests a list of Rancheria Groups, the name of the county in which the Rancheria is located, the size of the track of land, population, list the form if any of organization, is there a leader or someone who can speak for the group.
May 18, 1928: 45 Stat. 605, Amended April 29, 1930, 46 Stat. 259
Accounting and value of land taken without compensation under 18 Unratified Treaties
May 18, 1928: 45 Stat. 602 c. 624
Definition of California Indians and authorization of suit for compensation for lands taken from Indians
1923: Reno Indian Agency Survey and Report
In 1923, the Reno Indian Agency had jurisdiction over Indian reservations, colonies, villages and scattered bands of homeless Indians in Nevada and Northern California not under the superintendence of any other jurisdiction. The Agency and its entire personnel gave considerable time surveying and compiling data on populations, locations and needs of the various Indian Reservations, colonies, Rancherias, villages and scattered bands of homeless California Indians as documented in the Agency's annual report of 1923.
Sept. 9, 1917: Report on Landless Indians of California
Recommendations by Indian Agent for the landless Indians of California.
1906 and 1908 Appropriations Acts
The Congressional Acts of 1906 (34 Stat. 383) and 1908 (35 Stat. 70-76) were appropriation acts that provided money to purchase land for residential and agricultural use for homeless Indians of no specific tribal affiliation. Often these were small family groups or totally unrelated racially mixed Indian families thrown together on one piece of land. It is important to note here, that the process for taking land into trust did not develop until the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934. There is a specific process governed by regulation to change the status of fee land into trust land. Indians that shared a common residence of a federal area were permitted to organize under the terms and conditions of the Act. However the Congressional Act of June 18, 1934 only allowed federally recognized Indian tribes or descendents of federally recognized Indian tribes residing on Reservations to reorganize. The differences in the development of reservations and rancherias raises questions regarding land status for gaming under IGRA.
1907 Mission Indian Amendment
An Act March 1, 1907, authorized the Secretary to set apart and cause to be patented to Mission Indians such tracts of public lands in California as he found had been occupied by Mission Indians and were needed by them but which had not been selected by the Mission Commission (34 Stat. 1022-1023, c.2285).
March 21, 1906: C. E. Kelsey - Special Agent for California Indians
The Congressional Act of 1905 approved by Congress authorized an investigation through an inspector to determine the existing conditions of the California Indians and to report to Congress at the next session some plan to improve the same. The attached is the Field Report of Special Agent C. E. Kelsey.
1892: Amendment to the Mission Indians Relief Act
This amendment authorized the Secretary to carry out the recommendations of the Mission Indian Commission concerning exchange of lands with private individuals (27 Stat.61-62, c.139) as recommended in the Smiley Report. An Act of March 2, 1917, authorized the President to extend the trust period on lands held in trust for Mission bands or villages in California and directed the Secretary to make allotments to the Mission Indians in areas, as provided in an act of June 29, 1910 (38 Stat.859), instead of as provided in the act of January 12, 1891, above (39 Stat. 976, c.146, Section 3)
1891: Mission Indians Relief Act
26_Stat_712 Establishes A commission to identify reservation locations.
Dec. 29, 1891: Smiley Commission Report - Mission Indians
Albert Smiley Commissioner issues a detailed report, by tribe on proposed reservation boundaries, and establishes consolidation reservations for future use of Indians not included in the current report.
Jan. 23, 1888: 50th Congress Report
This Congressional Report contains a letter dated January 16, 1888, by Indian Commissioner J. D. C. Atkins who was asked to inventory and identify for Congress the Mission Indians living in California. Senate Report No. 74, 50th Congress, 1st. Session. The letter reported that the Mission Indians are members of four distinct tribes: Serrano, Dieguence (doe gain yos), Coahuilas (co we ha) and San Luis Rey (or San Luisenos). The Commissioner went onto identify 42 specific villages of Mission Indians and their tribal names today are products of those places, (such as Agua Caliente, Cabazon, Temecula, Rincon, etc. The investigative work, which led to this report for the Congressional inquiry, was “detailed and specific”.
1864 Four Reservations Act
The 1864 Act, also know as the "Four Reservations Act,” specifically stated that no more than four Indian reservations could be established within the State of California. This statutory limitation to four reservations within California was confirmed by the United States Supreme Court in the case of Mattz v. Arnett, 412 U. S. 481, 489 (1973). Thus, there could be no further reservations within California in the absence of specific Congressional authorization. While there have been some private bills establishing reservations for some California tribes, the only significant exception was the Mission Indians Relief Act of January 12, 1891, 26 Stat. 712, which provided for the establishment of a number of reservations for Mission Indian residing in Southern California.