- Legal Gambling Age On Indian Reservations Near Me
- Legal Gambling Age On Indian Reservations Confirmation
- Legal Gambling Age On Indian Reservations Sites
- Legal Gambling Age On Indian Reservations Las Vegas
- Legal Gambling Age In Arizona Indian Reservations
Nassau County’s gambling industry falls under the New York legal framework. Hence, Nassau players are restricted from enjoying a huge number of gambling activities. Over the years, the gambling laws in New York have limited this pastime only to casinos located on Indian reservations. The other lawful gambling activity is betting on horse races. Gambling Activity. Minimum Gambling Age. Casino Gambling. 21 for gambling at the two Indian casinos (Section 3(e) of the Federal Gaming Procedures and Tribal-State Compact) (Off-reservation casino gambling is illegal.) Lottery. 18 (CGS § 12-813(d)).
Table of Contents
IntroductionThe Indian Gaming Regulatory Act
Economically Speaking...
- The Positive
The Negative
Competition
Conclusion
Footnotes
Bibliography
Foxwoods Casino Other Related Web Pages
Only about 200 of the 562 recognized tribes operate major US state casinos, but the income from Indian reservation gambling surpasses that of Las Vegas and Atlantic City combined. The tribes we will be discussing have all experienced a dramatic change, From being nomads and living among forests a few decades ago to living in two and three-story. Minimum Legal Gambling Age by State. Legal gambling ages across the US vary, with states setting the minimum age at either 18 or 21. This can however change depending on the type of gambling, as. Native American gambling is a specific endeavor and refers to casino-style operations, bingo halls and other forms of gambling, conducted in Indian reservations or other tribal lands across the United States. Since the state governments are restrained in prohibiting such activities in these territories, as postulated by the 1988 Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, all tribal.
Introduction
Legal Gambling Age On Indian Reservations Near Me
[3]'Economic and social problems on Indian reservations in the United States and in other countries are well documented.'[4] Government entities, private research firms, and Indian groups have detailed reports concerning poverty, alcohol and drug abuse, juvenile delinquency, high crime rates, poor educational facilities, and many other problems. Tribal governments push for change and greater Indian self-determination to deal with their people's problems. The argument is that tribes are sovereign entities and are therefore responsible for their own affairs without interference from other governments; and self-determination is a central component of sovereignty.[5]
'Any mention of Las Vegas conjures up images of glitzy casinos with neon facades, a city built by gangsters to prey on the hopes of reckless tourists. Itís an extraordinary place that is also quintessentially American, a mecca for money-worshippers everywhere.'[6] Up until 1988, gambling was only legal in the two states of Nevada and New Jersey. Now gambling is only not legal in the two states of Hawaii and Utah.[7] Traditionally, Nevada and New Jersey were the only states involved in the American gambling industry, now they are feeling the pressure of an additional 46 states entering the gambling arena.
The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act
The Seminole case opened the doors to high-stakes bingo on reservations all over the country. Florida tried to close the Seminole tribe's high-stakes bingo parlor (opened in 1979), but the court ruled that bingo fell under statutes classed as regulatory rather than prohibitory.[10]
The Cabazon case established that once a state has legalized any form of gambling, Indian tribes within that state can offer the same game on trust land without any state interference or restrictions. [Trust land is reserved for and owned by Indians but held 'in trust' by federal government for the benefit of the Indian owners.] This case brought up concerns about tribal regulation of Indian gaming among many groups (i.e. Nevada and New Jersey where gambling is legal, the National Association of Attorney Generals, the National Sheriffs' Association).[11]
In response to the concerns arising, Congress passed the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA).[12] This act went into effect on October 17, 1988:
The act is intended to 1) promote tribal economic development, self-sufficiency, and strong tribal government; 2) provide for a regulatory base to protect Indian gaming from organized crime; and 3) establish the National Indian Gaming Commission.[13]The act defines three classes of gambling and gaming: Class I: Social games solely for prizes of minimal value or traditional forms of Indian gaming engages in by individuals as a part of, or in connection with, tribal ceremonies or celebrations. Class II: All forms of bingo, and other games similar to bingo such as pull tabs, lotto, etc. and card games that are explicitly authorized by state law, not including blackjack, baccarat, or chemin de fer. Class III: All forms of gaming that are not Class I gaming or Class II gaming.[14]
Class I gaming is within the jurisdiction of the tribe. Class II gaming is allowed if the state within which the tribe is located allows the gaming to anyone or under any conditions. A tribe is allowed to license and regulate Class II gaming on Indian lands. Class III gaming requires a tribe-state compact. The National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC) was established to approve the compacts and prevent abuses.[15]The IGRA is having a major impact on intergovernmental relationships among Indian tribes, states, and the federal government. First, the revenues generated have helped spur economic development in Indian country (which, too, supports the goals of tribal sovereignty and economic self-sufficiency). Second, intergovernmental conflicts have started between the tribes and the states over issues involving state sovereignty, criminal jurisdiction, and gambling revenues. Third, the IGRA ensures that the federal government maintains its position of supremacy over tribes and tribe/state relations.[16]
Economically Speaking...
Legal Gambling Age On Indian Reservations Confirmation
[19]Structural hindrance to economic development on reservations: trust land. Trust lands have given tribes a land base and some cultural integrity, but they make it difficult to attract industry and commercial enterprises to the reservation. Trust land can only by leased by industries. Banks are usually unwilling to lend money towards construction on reservations because they may not be able to repossess the structure in a case of default.[20]
The Positive...
In Anne Merline McCulloch's article, she quotes:
According to the Midwest Hospitality Advisors report on Indian gaming in Minnesota, the 13 Indian gaming operations in the State of Minnesota currently employ approximately 5,700 people. Four casinos have become the largest employer for their nearest city, four others are among the top five employers for their communities, and one other is in the top ten. Current employment includes 1,350 Native Americans, or approximately 24 percent of total employees.[22]The report also notes that between 1990 and 1992 the percent of Indian AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children) recipients residing in counties with Indian casinos decreased by 3.2 percent, while recipients in non-casino counties increased by 14.6 percent.[23]
Indian unemployment rates of 30 percent and more are dropping to almost nothing with the emergence of Indian casinos.[24]
Since the enactment of the IGRA, revenues from Indian gaming operations have grown exponentially. Nationwide, total revenues from Indian gaming are projected to top the $6 billion mark, with total profits exceeding $1 billion, in 1995.[25]
To continue with positive aspects, tribes use their profits for the betterment of the reservation and its people. They are building schools/colleges (there are currently 26 tribal colleges nationwide) and community centers, setting up education trust funds/scholarships, investing in alcohol and drug treatment programs, financing new business enterprises (entrepreneurships), and putting in water and sewer systems on the reservations.[26]
The Negative...
Another negative aspect involves an argument researchers debate: those who can least afford to gamble usually are the most affected. 'The poor spent a greater percentage of their income on gambling than the wealthy, giving gambling the same effect on incomes as regressive taxes--the poor are hit the hardest.'[28]
For example, residents of Chelsea, Massachusetts, the poorest city in the state, spend an average of $572 per year on the state lottery, but from that they get back only $80 a person in local aid, according to The Boston Globe. By contrast, the wealthier residents of Lincoln spend only $26 a person on lottery tickets annually, and they get more than that back in local aid.[29]
Opposition
Among Indians, bands have been divided over the gambling issue. Elderly fear losing their traditional values to corruption and organized crime.[30]'...the proliferation of gaming is a spiritual cancer eating away at what is left of the soul of Native American communities.'[31] Many of the younger generation see gambling as an opportunity to advance their people; improve life in their community. '...many are willing to face those stakes [corruption and organized crime] for economic salvation. Casinos are 'one of the first real tools natives have gotten to become self-sufficient,' said Phillip Pelletier, the economic development officer of Fort William First National...'[32]
In 1990, an incident arose among the Mohawks on the Akwesasne reservation, which is located inside the New York state, Quebec, and Ontario borders along the St. Lawrence River near Cornwall, Ontario. The dispute involved six gambling casinos along Route 37, a New York highway. The casinos were illegal under New York law, but their operators insisted that they were on sovereign territory. The contention between the pro- and anti-gambling Mohawks had been holding each other off at gun point. The fighting came to a peak when two lives were taken one night; a Mohawk Indian from each side of the dispute.[33]
Donald Trump charged that tribal gaming operations were riddled with crime at a Senate hearing in Washington, D.C. in May of 1993.[34]Trump led some of the U.S. gaming syndicates towards the workings of getting the 1988 Indian Gaming Regulatory Act repealed.[35]...[he] decided to sue the federal government to get the special rights of the Indian tribes revoked.'[36]
In June of 1993, legislation was sought for an amendment to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act requiring Indian owned casino to record and report all large transactions due to concerns that tribal casinos could be used by organized crime to launder money and evade taxes.[37]
Some state cases of opposition include: KANSAS - the Kansas attorney general successfully sued the governor in blocking legal recognition of a gaming compact that had been reached with the stateís Kickapoo tribe; OKLAHOMA - a court decision blocked implementation of federally approved Indian casino compacts as unlawful under the stateís constitution; WASHINGTON - a federal judge ruled against the Colville tribe in its attempt to compel the governor to negotiate a gambling compact with the tribe, finding such negotiations constitutionally flawed.[38]
Other state governments have avoided signing federally required gambling compacts with tribes by invoking the 10th and 11th Amendments. (The 10th asserts a stateís sovereignty and its freedom from being told what to do by Congress. The 11th protects states from being sued.)[39]Other courts have allowed Indians to offer games that are not permitted anywhere else in the state. For example, in California, a federal judge allowed tribal casinos to operate an array of games the state objects of, including video poker and Keno.[40]
Competition
'The national prominence of tribal casinos has also given Indian leaders potential political clout, especially with the federal government.'[44]'Tribal governments realize that a casino is not an end in itself. It is a means to achieve what no state or federal economic development program has been able to achieve for Indian people in 200 years--the return of self-respect and economic self-sufficiency,' says JoAnn Jones, tribal chair of the Wisconsin Winnebago Nation.'[45]
Native American Indian reservations are not international (although they are often compared to Third World nations [46]), but they are not governed by the same laws as the states either. States have no power to tax, regulate, or police casinos run by Indian tribes. Indian gambling revenues are exempt from federal, state, and local taxes! Of course this does not leave state officials or other casino competitors with a good taste in their mouths.[47](New Jersey imposes an eight percent tax on casino revenues which funds senior citizen and handicapped programs.[48])
Donald Trump has also attempted to interrupt the growth of Indian reservation casinos. On April 30, 1993, he filed a civil suit in U.S. District Court in Newark, New Jersey against U.S. Secretary of the Interior, Bruce Babbitt, and Tony Hope, chairman of the National Indian Gaming Commission, claiming that the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act is unconstitutional and gives Indians preferential treatment and an unfair advantage in acquiring licenses for setting up legal casinos on their land.[49][50]
Coincidentally, Trumpís three Atlantic City casinos, Trump Castle, Trump Plaza, and Trump Taj Mahal, are feeling the heat from the Mashantucket Pequotís Foxwoods casino in Connecticut and are fearing the possibility of the Ramapough Indians of Northern New Jersey opening a gambling operation near Atlantic City. 'Unabashed motor mouth Donald Trump lived up to his reputation on Oct. 5 when he told a congressional hearing that organized crime is rampant on Indian reservations. Trump went on to predict that if the trend toward gaming on Native American land continues, ëthis will be the biggest crime problem in this countryís history.í'[51]
From the Nightly Business Report transcript of December 20, 1993, announcer Mikkelson said, '...others say the fate of Atlantic City still rests in the hands of the state,... And competition is getting closer. Indian run Foxwood Casino in Connecticut is luring high rollers away.'[52]
Guest Hector Mon, Executive Vice President of Harrahís Casino, responded with, 'We do recognize that weíre no longer a regional monopoly and we will have to work harder to keep our customers in the future.'[53]
'Atlantic City Mayor James Whelan said the region recognized that the proliferation of gaming was a 'serious' threat and is taking 'significant' steps to stay competitive. ëWe must change our image from that of a convenient location to gamble back to the destination resort that we once were,í he said,' including improvement to the cityís infrastructure, transportation system and attractions.[54]
Las Vegas Mayor Jan Laverty Jones said officials in that city have long predicted gaming would expand nationally and have taken appropriate measures. 'We have been looking to diversify our economic base so as not to be so dependent on gaming. Weíve been bringing in other businesses and developing the mega-resorts to draw the family market. Though gaming is certainly central here, it is not the only entertainment available, and I think weíve been very successful at letting people know that.'[55]
'...opponents say government-sanctioned Indian casinos like Foxwoods will pull business away from privately run casinos in Atlantic City, Las Vegas and elsewhere.'[56] Other enterprises have complained that Indian gambling has ruined their business. In Wisconsin, Indian reservation gambling began in 1991. By July of 1993 there were 17 Indian casinos in the state. Also in the area, a $17 million dog-racing track had opened in 1990. During 1991 and 1992, it lost $6 million with high probability of being closed in the summer of 1993, taking jobs and tax revenues with it.[57]
Conclusion
In 1988, the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act gave the troubled Indians on the reservations the opportunity to better themselves through their own efforts. The fact that many tribes so far have been successful, and many more are desiring to start their own casinos to grab a piece of the industry is what kills the monopolistic-desirous moguls like Trump. They should not be taking away the window of opportunity that was opened only 8 years ago for the Indians. People like Trump fear loosing their billions of dollars and control of their mostly secluded industry that had little competition before.
Competition is an inevitable force. It is an entity that appears where success is experienced. Trump-ites should pursue the path of innovation and refinement as a means to prevent downfall. For example, Las Vegas' attempt at family entertainment (however, I'm not sure that family element is an ideal approach - is the mixture of amusement park with gambling, smoking, drinking, and prostitution the kind of environment you would like to take your children to for vacation?).
Tribes able to make large profits from gambling need to secure the welfare of the future through reinvestment within the tribe's people because market saturation might be reached, be it additional Indian casinos and/or lawmakers legalizing gambling to all. They should take advantage of what they have now, because it could be gone tomorrow!
Foxwoods Casino Other Related Web Pages
Date: May 6, 1996
Footnotes
- 1. Chris Ison, 'Gamblingís Toll in Minnesota,' Readerís Digest (April 1996): 101. Return
2. Jon Magnuson, 'Casino Wars: Ethics and Economics in Indian Country,' Christian Century (February 16, 1994): 169-171.Return
3. Richard L. Worsnop, 'Gambling Boom,' CQ Researcher (March 18, 1994): 255. Return
4. Don A. Cozzetto, 'The Economic and Social Implications of Indian Gaming: The Case of Minnesota,' American Indian Culture and Research Journal (Winter 1995): 119. Return
5. Ibid., 119. Return
6. Betsy Reed, 'Americaís New Addiction,' Dollars and Sense (July/August 1994): 18. Return
7. Ison, 101. Return
8. 658 F.2d 310 (1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1020 (1983). Return
9. 480 U.S. 202 (1987). Return
10. Anne Merline McCulloch, 'The Politics of Indian Gaming: Tribe/State Relations and American Federalism,' Publius (Summer 1994): 99-113. Return
11. Ibid. Return
12. 25 U.S.C.A. 2701. Return
13. McCulloch, 99-113. Return
14. 25 U.S.C.A. 2703. Return
15. McCulloch, 99-113. Return
16. Ibid. Return
17. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Labor Affairs, Indian Service Population and Labor Force Estimates (Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Indian Affairs, 1991): 2. Return
18. Marlita A. Reddy, ed, Statistical Record of Native North Americans (Detroit, Mich.: Gale Research, 1993): 685. Return
19. McCulloch, 99-113. Return
20. Ibid. Return
21. Ibid. Return
22. Midwest Hospitality Advisors, Impact: Indian Gaming in the State of Minnesota: A Study of the Economic Benefits and Tax Revenue Generated (Minneapolis, Minn.: MHA, 1992): II-1. Return
23. Ibid. Return
24. McCulloch, 99-113. Return
25. Cozzetto, 123. Return
26. Ibid., 120,125. McCulloch, 99-113. Return
27. Cozzetto, 126. Return
28. Judy Zelio, 'The Fat New Buffalo,' State Legislatures (June 1994): 38-41. Return
29. Reed, 19. Return
30. Marci McDonald, 'Tribal Gamblers,' Maclean's (May 30, 1994): 32-33. Return
31. Magnuson, 169-171. Return
32. McDonald, 32-33. Return
33. Peeter Kopvillem, 'Tribal Warfare,' Maclean's (May 14, 1990): 14. Return
34. Zelio, 38-41. Return
35. McDonald, 32-33. Return
36. Pierre Briancon, 'Betting with the Indians,' World Press Review (December 1993): 36-7. Return
37. Rogers Worthington, '...and where it stops, nobody knows,' Chicago Tribune (August 22, 1993 Final Edition): Sunday Magazine Section, zone C, p.14. Return
38. Ibid. Return
39. Ibid. Return
40. Thomas J. Maier. 'The Big Gamble; Indian Gaming Law Remains Volatile Issue,' The Record (May 14, 1993): Business Section, p.E01. Return
41. Dick Dahl, 'The Gamble that Paid Off,' American Bar Association Journal (May 1995): 86. Return
42. McCulloch, 99-113. Return
43. Cozzetto, 123. Return
44. Ibid., 120. Return
45. Zelio, 38-41. Return
46. McCulloch, 99-113. Return
47. W. John Moore, 'A Winning Hand?' The National Journal (July 17, 1993): 1796. Return
48. Anthony Birritteri, 'Casino gaming industry prepares for battle of the century,' New Jersey Business (August 1994): Section 1, p.48. Return
49. Worthington, 14. Return
50. Judith Evans, 'Calculated Gamble; Trump cries foul over Indian casinos,' Newsday (May 4, 1993 City Edition): Business Section, p. 41. Return
51. Thane Peterson, 'Bury His Mouth at Wounded Knee,' Business Week (October 18, 1993): 42. Return
52. The Nightly Business Report (December 20, 1993): Community Television Foundation of Southern Florida, Inc. Return
53. Ibid. Return
54. Theresa J. Post, 'Casino gambling on a roll, creating new markets for trade; tourist industry,' Travel Weekly (May 10, 1993): 1. Return
55. Ibid. Return
56. Maier, 64. Return
57. Moore, 1796. Return
Foxwoods Casino Other Related Web Pages
Why Tribes Exist Today in the United States
From 1778 to 1871, the United States’ relations with individual American Indian nations indigenous to what is now the U.S. were defined and conducted largely through the treaty-making process. These “contracts among nations” recognized and established unique sets of rights, benefits, and conditions for the treaty-making tribes who agreed to cede of millions of acres of their homelands to the United States and accept its protection. Like other treaty obligations of the United States, Indian treaties are considered to be “the supreme law of the land,” and they are the foundation upon which federal Indian law and the federal Indian trust relationship is based.
Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution vests Congress, and by extension the Executive and Judicial branches of our government, with the authority to engage in relations with the tribes, thereby firmly placing tribes within the constitutional fabric of our nation. When the governmental authority of tribes was first challenged in the 1830's, U. S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall articulated the fundamental principle that has guided the evolution of federal Indian law to the present: That tribes possess a nationhood status and retain inherent powers of self-government.
The federal Indian trust responsibility is a legal obligation under which the United States “has charged itself with moral obligations of the highest responsibility and trust” toward Indian tribes (Seminole Nation v. United States, 1942). This obligation was first discussed by Chief Justice John Marshall in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831). Over the years, the trust doctrine has been at the center of numerous other Supreme Court cases, thus making it one of the most important principles in federal Indian law.
The federal Indian trust responsibility is also a legally enforceable fiduciary obligation on the part of the United States to protect tribal treaty rights, lands, assets, and resources, as well as a duty to carry out the mandates of federal law with respect to American Indian and Alaska Native tribes and villages. In several cases discussing the trust responsibility, the Supreme Court has used language suggesting that it entails legal duties, moral obligations, and the fulfillment of understandings and expectations that have arisen over the entire course of the relationship between the United States and the federally recognized tribes.
Legal Gambling Age On Indian Reservations Sites
A federally recognized tribe is an American Indian or Alaska Native tribal entity that is recognized as having a government-to-government relationship with the United States, with the responsibilities, powers, limitations, and obligations attached to that designation, and is eligible for funding and services from the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
Furthermore, federally recognized tribes are recognized as possessing certain inherent rights of self-government (i.e., tribal sovereignty) and are entitled to receive certain federal benefits, services, and protections because of their special relationship with the United States. At present, there are 574 federally recognized American Indian and Alaska Native tribes and villages.
Historically, most of today’s federally recognized tribes received federal recognition status through treaties, acts of Congress, presidential executive orders or other federal administrative actions, or federal court decisions.
In 1978, the Interior Department issued regulations governing the Federal Acknowledgment Process (FAP) to handle requests for federal recognition from Indian groups whose character and history varied widely in a uniform manner. These regulations – 25 C.F.R. Part 83 – were revised in 1994 and are still in effect.
Also in 1994, Congress enacted Public Law 103-454, the Federally Recognized Indian Tribe List Act (108 Stat. 4791, 4792), which formally established three ways in which an Indian group may become federally recognized:
- By Act of Congress,
- By the administrative procedures under 25 C.F.R. Part 83, or
- By decision of a United States court.
However, a tribe whose relationship with the United States has been expressly terminated by Congress may not use the Federal Acknowledgment Process. Only Congress can restore federal recognition to a “terminated” tribe.
The Federally Recognized Indian Tribe List Act also requires the Secretary of the Interior to publish annually a list of the federally recognized tribes in the Federal Register.
When tribes first encountered Europeans, they were a power to be reckoned with because the combined American Indian and Alaska Native population dominated the North American continent. Their strength in numbers, the control they exerted over the natural resources within and between their territories, and the European practice of establishing relations with countries other than themselves and the recognition of tribal property rights led to tribes being seen by exploring foreign powers as sovereign nations, who treatied with them accordingly.
However, as the foreign powers’ presence expanded and with the establishment and growth of the United States, tribal populations dropped dramatically and tribal sovereignty gradually eroded. While tribal sovereignty is limited today by the United States under treaties, acts of Congress, Executive Orders, federal administrative agreements and court decisions, what remains is nevertheless protected and maintained by the federally recognized tribes against further encroachment by other sovereigns, such as the states. Tribal sovereignty ensures that any decisions about the tribes with regard to their property and citizens are made with their participation and consent.
In the United States there are three types of reserved federal lands: military, public, and Indian. A federal Indian reservation is an area of land reserved for a tribe or tribes under treaty or other agreement with the United States, executive order, or federal statute or administrative action as permanent tribal homelands, and where the federal government holds title to the land in trust on behalf of the tribe.
Approximately 56.2 million acres are held in trust by the United States for various Indian tribes and individuals. There are approximately 326 Indian land areas in the U.S. administered as federal Indian reservations (i.e., reservations, pueblos, rancherias, missions, villages, communities, etc.). The largest is the 16 million-acre Navajo Nation Reservation located in Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah. The smallest is a 1.32-acre parcel in California where the Pit River Tribe’s cemetery is located. Many of the smaller reservations are less than 1,000 acres.
Some reservations are the remnants of a tribe’s original land base. Others were created by the federal government for the resettling of Indian people forcibly relocated from their homelands. Not every federally recognized tribe has a reservation. Federal Indian reservations are generally exempt from state jurisdiction, including taxation, except when Congress specifically authorizes such jurisdiction.
Yes, one. It is the Metlakatla Indian Community of the Annette Island Reserve in southeastern Alaska.
Yes. Other types of Indian lands are:
- Allotted lands, which are remnants of reservations broken up during the federal allotment period of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Although the practice of allotting lands had begun in the eighteenth century, it was put to greater use after the Civil War. By 1885, over 11,000 patents had been issued to individual Indians under various treaties and laws. Starting with the General Allotment Act in 1887 (also known as the Dawes Act) until the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, allotments were conveyed to members of affected tribes and held in trust by the federal government. As allotments were taken out of trust, they became subject to state and local taxation, which resulted in thousands of acres passing out of Indian hands. Today, 10,059,290.74 million acres of individually owned lands are still held in trust for allotees and their heirs.
- Restricted status, also known as restricted fee, where title to the land is held by an individual Indian person or a tribe and which can only be alienated or encumbered by the owner with the approval of the Secretary of the Interior because of limitations contained in the conveyance instrument pursuant to federal law.
- State Indian reservations, which are lands held in trust by a state for an Indian tribe. With state trust lands title is held by the state on behalf of the tribe and the lands are not subject to state property tax. They are subject to state law, however. State trust lands stem from treaties or other agreements between a tribal group and the state government or the colonial government(s) that preceded it.
American Indian and Alaska Native tribes, businesses, and individuals may also own land as private property. In such cases, they are subject to state and local laws, regulations, codes, and taxation.
No. Congress ended treaty-making with Indian tribes in 1871. Since then, relations with Indian groups have been formalized and/or codified by Congressional acts, Executive Orders, and Executive Agreements. Between 1778, when the first treaty was made with the Delawares, to 1871, when Congress ended the treaty-making period, the United States Senate ratified 370 treaties. At least 45 others were negotiated with tribes but were never ratified by the Senate.
The treaties that were made often contain commitments that have either been fulfilled or subsequently superseded by Congressional legislation.
In addition, American Indians and Alaska Natives can access education, health, welfare, and other social service programs available to all citizens, if they are eligible. Even if a tribe does not have a treaty with the United States, or has treaties that were negotiated but not ratified, its members may still receive services from the BIA or other federal programs, if eligible.
The specifics of particular treaties signed by government negotiators with Indian tribes are contained in one volume (Vol. II) of the publication, Indian Affairs, Laws and Treaties: 1778-1883, compiled, annotated, and edited by Charles J. Kappler. Published by the United States Government Printing Office in 1904, it is now out of print, but can be found in most large law libraries and on the Internet at https://dc.library.okstate.edu/digital/collection/kapplers. The treaty volume has also been published privately under the title, “Indian Treaties: 1778-1883.”
Originals of all the treaties are maintained by the National Archives and Records Administration of the General Services Administration. For more information on how to obtain copies or for more information about the treaties visit NARA’s website at www.nara.gov .
The Nature of Federal-Tribal and State-Tribal Relations
The relationship between federally recognized tribes and the United States is one between sovereigns, i.e., between a government and a government. This “government-to-government” principle, which is grounded in the United States Constitution, has helped to shape the long history of relations between the federal government and these tribal nations.
Because the Constitution vested the Legislative Branch with plenary power over Indian Affairs, states have no authority over tribal governments unless expressly authorized by Congress. While federally recognized tribes generally are not subordinate to states, they can have a government-to-government relationship with these other sovereigns, as well.
Furthermore, federally recognized tribes possess both the right and the authority to regulate activities on their lands independently from state government control. They can enact and enforce stricter or more lenient laws and regulations than those of the surrounding or neighboring state(s) wherein they are located. Yet, tribes frequently collaborate and cooperate with states through compacts or other agreements on matters of mutual concern such as environmental protection and law enforcement.
In 1953, Congress enacted Public Law 83-280 (67 Stat. 588) to grant certain states criminal jurisdiction over American Indians on reservations and to allow civil litigation that had come under tribal or federal court jurisdiction to be handled by state courts. However, the law did not grant states regulatory power over tribes or lands held in trust by the United States; federally guaranteed tribal hunting, trapping, and fishing rights; basic tribal governmental functions such as enrollment and domestic relations; nor the power to impose state taxes. These states also may not regulate matters such as environmental control, land use, gambling, and licenses on federal Indian reservations.
The states required by Public Law 280 to assume civil and criminal jurisdiction over federal Indian lands were Alaska (except the Metlakatla Indian Community on the Annette Island Reserve, which maintains criminal jurisdiction), California, Minnesota (except the Red Lake Reservation), Nebraska, Oregon (except the Warm Springs Reservation), and Wisconsin. In addition, the federal government gave up all special criminal jurisdiction in these states over Indian offenders and victims. The states that elected to assume full or partial jurisdiction were Arizona (1967), Florida (1961), Idaho (1963, subject to tribal consent), Iowa (1967), Montana (1963), Nevada (1955), North Dakota (1963, subject to tribal consent), South Dakota (1957-1961), Utah (1971), and Washington (1957-1963).
Subsequent acts of Congress, court decisions, and state actions to retrocede jurisdiction back to the Federal Government have muted some of the effects of the 1953 law, and strengthened the tribes’ jurisdiction over civil and criminal matters on their reservations.
Tribal Government: Powers, Rights, and Authorities
Tribes possess all powers of self-government except those relinquished under treaty with the United States, those that Congress has expressly extinguished, and those that federal courts have ruled are subject to existing federal law or are inconsistent with overriding national policies. Tribes, therefore, possess the right to form their own governments; to make and enforce laws, both civil and criminal; to tax; to establish and determine membership (i.e., tribal citizenship); to license and regulate activities within their jurisdiction; to zone; and to exclude persons from tribal lands.
Limitations on inherent tribal powers of self-government are few, but do include the same limitations applicable to states, e.g., neither tribes nor states have the power to make war, engage in foreign relations, or print and issue currency.
For thousands of years, American Indians and Alaska Natives governed themselves through tribal laws, cultural traditions, religious customs, and kinship systems, such as clans and societies. Today, most modern tribal governments are organized democratically, that is, with an elected leadership.
Through their tribal governments, tribal members generally define conditions of membership, regulate domestic relations of members, prescribe rules of inheritance for reservation property not in trust status, levy taxes, regulate property under tribal jurisdiction, control the conduct of members by tribal ordinances, and administer justice. They also continue to utilize their traditional systems of self-government whenever and wherever possible.
Most federally recognized tribes are organized under the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) of 1934 (25 U.S.C. 461 et seq.), including a number of Alaska Native villages, which adopted formal governing documents under the provisions of a 1936 amendment to the IRA. The passage in 1971 of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601), however, provided for the creation of regional and village corporations under state law to manage the money and lands granted to Alaska Natives by the act. The Oklahoma Indian Welfare Act of 1936 provided for the organization of Indian tribes within the State of Oklahoma.
Many tribes have constitutions, others operate under articles of association or other bodies of law, and some have found a way to combine their traditional systems of government within a modern governmental framework. Some do not operate under any of these acts, but are nevertheless organized under documents approved by the Secretary of the Interior. Contemporary tribal governments are usually, but not always, modeled upon the federal system of the three branches: Legislative, Executive, and Judicial.
The chief executive of a tribe is usually called a chairman, chairwoman or chairperson, but may also be called a principal chief, governor, president, mayor, spokesperson, or representative. The chief executive presides over the tribe’s legislative body and executive branch. In modern tribal government, the chief executive and members of the tribal council or business committee are almost always elected.
A tribe’s legislative body is usually called a tribal council, a village council, or a tribal business committee. It is comprised of tribal members who are elected by eligible tribal voters. In some tribes, the council is comprised of all eligible adult tribal members. Although some tribes require a referendum by their members to enact laws, a tribal council generally acts as any other legislative body in creating laws, authorizing expenditures, appropriating funds, and conducting oversight of activities carried out by the chief executive and tribal government employees. An elected tribal council and chief executive, recognized as such by the Secretary of the Interior, have authority to speak and act for the tribe as a whole, and to represent it in negotiations with federal, state, and local governments.
Furthermore, many tribes have established, or are building, their judicial branch – the tribal court system – to interpret tribal laws and administer justice.
Generally, tribal courts have civil jurisdiction over Indians and non-Indians who either reside or do business on federal Indian reservations. They also have criminal jurisdiction over violations of tribal laws committed by tribal members residing or doing business on the reservation.
Under 25 C.F.R. Part 115, tribal courts are responsible for appointing guardians, determining competency, awarding child support from Individual Indian Money (IIM) accounts, determining paternity, sanctioning adoptions, marriages, and divorces, making presumptions of death, and adjudicating claims involving trust assets. There are approximately 225 tribes that contract or compact with the BIA to perform the Secretary’s adjudicatory function and 23 Courts of Indian Offenses (also known as CFR courts) which exercise federal authority. The Indian Tribal Justice Act of 1993 (P.L. 103-176, 107 Stat. 2005) supports tribal courts in becoming, along with federal and state courts, well-established dispensers of justice in Indian Country.
Congress has recognized the right of tribes to have a greater say over the development and implementation of federal programs and policies that directly impact on them and their tribal members. It did so by enacting two major pieces of legislation that together embody the important concepts of tribal self-determination and self-governance: The Indian Self-determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975, as amended (25 U.S.C. 450 et seq.) and the Tribal Self-Governance Act of 1994 (25 U.S.C. 458aa et seq.). Through these laws, Congress accorded tribal governments the authority to administer themselves the programs and services usually administered by the BIA for their tribal members. It also upheld the principle of tribal consultation, whereby the federal government consults with tribes on federal actions, policies, rules or regulations that will directly affect them.
Our Nation’s American Indian and Alaska Native Citizens
As a general rule, an American Indian or Alaska Native person is someone who has blood degree from and is recognized as such by a federally recognized tribe or village (as an enrolled tribal member) and/or the United States. Of course, blood quantum (the degree of American Indian or Alaska Native blood from a federally recognized tribe or village that a person possesses) is not the only means by which a person is considered to be an American Indian or Alaska Native. Other factors, such as a person’s knowledge of his or her tribe’s culture, history, language, religion, familial kinships, and how strongly a person identifies himself or herself as American Indian or Alaska Native, are also important. In fact, there is no single federal or tribal criterion or standard that establishes a person's identity as American Indian or Alaska Native.
There are major differences, however, when the term “American Indian” is used in an ethnological sense versus its use in a political/legal sense. The rights, protections, and services provided by the United States to individual American Indians and Alaska Natives flow not from a person's identity as such in an ethnological sense, but because he or she is a member of a federally recognized tribe. That is, a tribe that has a government-to-government relationship and a special trust relationship with the United States. These special trust and government-to-government relationships entail certain legally enforceable obligations and responsibilities on the part of the United States to persons who are enrolled members of such tribes. Eligibility requirements for federal services will differ from program to program. Likewise, the eligibility criteria for enrollment (or membership) in a tribe will differ from tribe to tribe.
According to the U.S. Bureau of the Census, the estimated population of American Indians and Alaska Natives, including those of more than one race, as of July 1, 2007, was 4.5 million, or 1.5 per cent of the total U.S. population. In the BIA’s 2005 American Indian Population and Labor Force Report, the latest available, the total number of enrolled members of the (then) 561 federally recognized tribes was shown to be less than half the Census number, or 1,978,099.
When referring to American Indian or Alaska Native persons, it is still appropriate to use the terms “American Indian” and “Alaska Native.” These terms denote the cultural and historical distinctions between persons belonging to the indigenous tribes of the continental United States (American Indians) and the indigenous tribes and villages of Alaska (Alaska Natives, i.e., Eskimos, Aleuts, and Indians). They also refer specifically to persons eligible for benefits and services funded or directly provided by the BIA.
The term “Native American” came into broad usage in the 1970's as an alternative to “American Indian.” Since that time, however, it has been gradually expanded within the public lexicon to include all Native peoples of the United States and its trust territories, i.e., American Indians, Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians, Chamorros, and American Samoans, as well as persons from Canada First Nations and indigenous communities in Mexico and Central and South America who are U.S. residents.
No. The Federal Government is a trustee of Indian property, not a guardian of all American Indians and Alaska Natives. Although the Secretary of the Interior is authorized by law to protect, where necessary, the interests of minors and adult persons deemed incompetent to handle their affairs, this protection does not confer a guardian-ward relationship.
Yes. As early as 1817, U.S. citizenship had been conferred by special treaty upon specific groups of Indian people. American citizenship was also conveyed by statutes, naturalization proceedings, and by service in the Armed Forces with an honorable discharge in World War I. In 1924, Congress extended American citizenship to all other American Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States. American Indians and Alaska Natives are citizens of the United States and of the individual states, counties, cities, and towns where they reside. They can also become citizens of their tribes or villages as enrolled tribal members.
Yes. American Indians and Alaska Natives have the right to vote just as all other U.S. citizens do. They can vote in presidential, congressional, state and local, and tribal elections, if eligible. And, just as the federal government and state and local governments have the sovereign right to establish voter eligibility criteria, so do tribal governments.
Yes. American Indians and Alaska Natives have the same rights as other citizens to hold public office. Over the years, American Indian and Alaska Native men and women have held elected and appointed offices at all levels of federal, state, and local government. Charles Curtis, a member of the Kaw Tribe of Kansas, served in both houses of Congress before holding the second highest elected office in the nation – that of Vice President of the United States under President Herbert Hoover. American Indians and Alaska Natives also serve in state legislatures, state judicial systems, county and city governments, and on local school boards.
Any “special” rights held by federally recognized tribes and their members are generally based on treaties or other agreements between the tribes and the United States. The heavy price American Indians and Alaska Natives paid to retain certain rights of self-government was to relinquish much of their land and resources to the United States. U.S. law protects the inherent rights they did not relinquish. Among those may be hunting and fishing rights and access to sacred sites.
Yes. They pay the same taxes as other citizens with the following exceptions:
- Federal income taxes are not levied on income from trust lands held for them by the U.S.
- State income taxes are not paid on income earned on a federal Indian reservation.
- State sales taxes are not paid by Indians on transactions made on a federal Indian reservation.
- Local property taxes are not paid on reservation or trust land.
Yes. As U.S. citizens, American Indians and Alaska Natives are generally subject to federal, state, and local laws. On federal Indian reservations, however, only federal and tribal laws apply to members of the tribe, unless Congress provides otherwise. In federal law, the Assimilative Crimes Act makes any violation of state criminal law a federal offense on reservations. Most tribes now maintain tribal court systems and facilities to detain tribal members convicted of certain offenses within the boundaries of the reservation.
No. American Indians and Alaska Natives come from a multitude of different cultures with diverse languages, and for thousands of years used oral tradition to pass down familial and cultural information among generations of tribal members. Some tribes, even if widely scattered, belong to the same linguistic families. Common means of communicating between tribes allowed trade routes and political alliances to flourish. As contact between Indians and non-Indians grew, so did the necessity of learning of new languages. Even into the 20th century, many American Indians and Alaska Natives were bi- or multilingual from learning to speak their own language and English, French, Russian, or Spanish, or even another tribal language.
It has been reported that at the end of the 15th century over 300 American Indian and Alaska Native languages were spoken. Today, fewer than 200 tribal languages are still viable, with some having been translated into written form. English, however, has become the predominant language in the home, school, and workplace. Those tribes who can still do so are working to preserve their languages and create new speakers from among their tribal populations.
Legal Gambling Age On Indian Reservations Las Vegas
No. American Indians and Alaska Natives live and work anywhere in the United States (and the world) just as other citizens do. Many leave their reservations, communities or villages for the same reasons as do other Americans who move to urban centers: to seek education and employment. Over one-half of the total U.S. American Indian and Alaska Native population now live away from their tribal lands. However, most return home to visit relatives; attend family gatherings and celebrations; participate in religious, cultural, or community activities; work for their tribal governments; operate businesses; vote in tribal elections or run for tribal office; retire; or to be buried.
Yes. American Indians and Alaska Natives have a long and distinguished history of serving in our nation’s Armed Forces.
During the Civil War, American Indians served on both sides of the conflict. Among the most well-known are Brigadier General Ely S. Parker (Seneca), an aide to Union General Ulysses S. Grant who recorded the terms of Confederate General Robert E. Lee’s surrender at Appomattox Courthouse in Virginia that ended the war, and Brigadier General Stand Watie (Cherokee), the last of the Confederate generals to cease fighting after the surrender was concluded. American Indians also fought with Theodore Roosevelt in the Spanish-American War.
During World War I over 8,000 American Indian soldiers, of whom 6,000 were volunteers, served. Their patriotism moved Congress to pass the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. In World War II, 25,000 American Indian and Alaska Native men and women fought on all fronts in Europe and the South Pacific earning, collectively, at least 71 Air Medals, 51 Silver Stars, 47 Bronze Stars, 34 Distinguished Flying Crosses, and two Congressional Medals of Honor. Alaska Natives also served in the Alaska Territorial Guard.
Starting in World War I and again in World War II, the U.S. military employed a number of American Indian servicemen to use their tribal languages as a military code that could not be broken by the enemy. These “code talkers” came from many different tribes, including Chippewa, Choctaw, Creek, Crow, Comanche, Hopi, Navajo, Seminole, and Sioux. During World War II, the Navajos constituted the largest component within that elite group.
In the Korean Conflict, one Congressional Medal of Honor was awarded to an American Indian serviceman. In the Vietnam War, 41,500 Indian service personnel served. In 1990, prior to Operation Desert Storm, some 24,000 Indian men and women were in the military. Approximately 3,000 served in the Persian Gulf with three among those killed in action. American Indian service personnel have also served in Afghanistan (Operation Enduring Freedom) and in Iraq (Operation Iraqi Freedom).
While American Indians and Alaska Natives have the same obligations for military service as other U.S. citizens, many tribes have a strong military tradition within their cultures, and veterans are considered to be among their most honored members.
The Assistant Secretary - Indian Affairs, the BIA, and the BIE
The Assistant Secretary - Indian Affairs (AS-IA) has responsibility for assisting the Secretary of the Interior in fulfilling the Department’s trust responsibilities to American Indian and Alaska Native tribes and individuals, promoting tribal self-determination and economic well-being, and supporting the government-to-government relationship between the federally recognized tribes and the United States.
There have been 13 assistant secretaries since the post was established in 1977 by a DOI secretarial order. The current Assistant Secretary - Indian Affairs is Tara KatukSweeney. The United States Senate confirmed Ms. Sweeney on June 28, 2018. She assumed her official duties on July 30, 2018. Ms. Sweeney, who comes from the Iñupiat village of Utqiaġvik in northern Alaska, is the first Alaska Native and second woman to be confirmed as the Assistant Secretary.
The following are the Assistant Secretaries – Indian Affairs in order of their terms of service:
- Forrest J. Gerard, Blackfeet (1977-1980)
- Thomas W. Fredericks, Mandan-Hidatsa (1981)
- Kenneth L. Smith, Wasco (1981-1984)
- Ross O. Swimmer, Cherokee Nation (1985-1989)
- Dr. Eddie F. Brown, Pascua Yaqui-Tohono O’odham (1989-1993)
- Ada E. Deer, Menominee (1993-1997)
- Kevin Gover, Pawnee (1997-2001)
- Neal McCaleb, Chickasaw (2001-2002)
- David W. Anderson, Lac Courte Oreilles Chippewa-Choctaw Nation (2004-2005)
- Carl J. Artman, Oneida Nation (2007-2008)
- Larry Echo Hawk, Pawnee (2009-2012)
- Kevin K. Washburn, Chickasaw (2012-2016)
Reporting directly to the Assistant Secretary through are the following officers, agencies and offices:
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary – Indian Affairs (PDAS)
- Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)
- Bureau of Indian Education (BIE)
- Bureau of Trust Funds Administration (BTFA)
- Office of Congressional and Legislative Affairs (OCL)
- Office of Public Affairs (OPA)
- Office of Federal Acknowledgment (OFA)
- Office of Indian Gaming (OIG)
- Office of Regulatory Affairs and Collaborative Action (RACA)
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and Economic Development (DASPED)
- Offices of Indian Energy and Economic Development (IEED)
- Office of Self-Governance (OSG)
- Executive Director to the White House Council on Native American Affairs
Deputy Assistant Secretary – Management (DASM)
- Division of Administration and Resources ManagementDivision of Internal Evaluation and Assessment
- Office of Budget and Performance Management
- Office of the Chief Financial Officer
- Office of Human Capital Management
- Office of Facilities, Property and Safety Management
- Office of Information Management Technology
The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) is the primary federal agency charged with carrying out the United States’ trust responsibility to American Indian and Alaska Native people, maintaining the federal government-to-government relationship with the federally recognized Indian tribes, and promoting and supporting tribal self-determination. The bureau implements federal laws and policies and administers programs established for American Indians and Alaska Natives under the trust responsibility and the government-to-government relationship.
Legal Gambling Age In Arizona Indian Reservations
The Continental Congress governed Indian affairs during the first years of the United States – in 1775 it established a Committee on Indian Affairs headed by Benjamin Franklin. At the end of the eighteenth century, Congress transferred the responsibility for managing trade relations with the tribes to the Secretary of War by its act of August 20, 1789 (1 Stat. 54). An Office of Indian Trade was established in the War Department by an act of April 21, 1806 (2 Stat. 402) specifically to handle this responsibility below the secretarial level. It was later abolished by an act of May 6, 1822 (3 Stat. 679) which handed responsibility for all Indian matters back to the Secretary of War.
Secretary of War John C. Calhoun administratively established the BIA within the his department on March 11, 1824. Congress later legislatively established the bureau and the Commissioner of Indian Affairs post via the act of July 9, 1832 (4 Stat. 564). In 1849, the BIA was transferred to the newly created Interior Department. In the years that followed, the Bureau was known variously as the Indian office, the Indian bureau, the Indian department, and the Indian service. The name “Bureau of Indian Affairs” was formally adopted by the Interior Department on September 17, 1947.
Since 1824 there have been 45 Commissioners of Indian Affairs of which six have been American Indian or Alaska Native: Ely S. Parker, Seneca (1869-1871); Robert L. Bennett, Oneida (1966-1969); Louis R. Bruce, Mohawk-Oglala Sioux (1969-1973); Morris Thompson, Athabascan (1973-1976); Benjamin Reifel, Sioux (1976-1977); and William E. Hallett, Red Lake Chippewa (1979-1981).
For almost 200 years—beginning with treaty agreements negotiated by the United States and tribes in the late 18th and 19th centuries, through the General Allotment Act of 1887, which opened tribal lands west of the Mississippi to non-Indian settlers, the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 when American Indians and Alaska Natives were granted U.S. citizenship and the right to vote, the New Deal and the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, which established modern tribal governments, the World War II period of relocation and the post-War termination era of the 1950s, the activism of the 1960s and 1970s that saw the takeover of the BIA’s headquarters in Washington, D.C., to the passage of landmark legislation such as the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975 and the Tribal Self-Governance Act of 1994, which have fundamentally changed how the BIA and the tribes conduct business with each other—the BIA has embodied the trust and government-to-government relationships between the U.S. and the tribal nations that bear the designation “federally recognized.”
The Bureau of Indian Affairs is a rarity among federal agencies. With roots reaching back to the earliest days of the republic, the BIA is almost as old as the United States itself. For most of its existence, the BIA has mirrored the public's ambivalence towards the nation's indigenous people. But, as federal policy has evolved from seeking the subjugation of American Indians and Alaska Natives into one that respects tribal self-determination, so, too, has the BIA's mission evolved into one that is based on service to and partnership with the tribes.
The BIA Mission Statement, which is based on principles embodied in federal treaties, laws and policies, and in judicial decisions, clearly describes the bureau's relationship today with the American Indian and Alaska Native people:
'The BIA's mission is to enhance the quality of life, to promote economic opportunity, and to carry out the responsibility to protect and improve the trust assets of American Indians, Indian tribes and Alaska Natives. We will accomplish this through the delivery of quality services, maintaining government-to-government relationships within the spirit of self-determination.'
Today, in keeping with their authorities and responsibilities under the Snyder Act of 1921 and other federal laws, regulations, and treaties, BIA employees across the country work with tribal governments in the administration of employment and job training assistance; law enforcement and justice; agricultural and economic development; tribal governance; and natural resources management programs to enhance the quality of life in tribal communities. The following are just some examples of what we do:
- We provide funding to and administer government program services for the federally recognized American Indian and Alaska Native tribes located in 34 states, and through them to their approximately 1.9 million members.
- We work with tribes in the administration of approximately 56 million acres of trust land, and the natural resources therein, for the use and benefit of the tribes and individual Indians.
- We maintain five law enforcement district offices nationwide to provide police protection and investigative services for both Indian and non-Indians living in Indian Country. We also directly operate or fund tribally operated law enforcement programs, courts, and detention facilities in tribal communities across the U.S.
- We build and maintain thousands of miles of roads, as well as bridges, dams, and other physical infrastructure throughout Indian Country which benefit both Indians and non-Indians alike.
- We work with other federal, tribal, state, and local emergency personnel in responses to wildland fires and other natural disasters.
- We administer the Guaranteed Indian Loan Program to stimulate, increase, and sustain Indian entrepreneurship and business development in tribal communities.
- We assist tribes in administering federal economic development and employment and training programs.
- We administer BIA programs for tribes unable or who choose not to operate those programs.
- We directly serve thousands of individual Indian trust beneficiaries by providing assistance in the probating of Indian trust estates, administering leases approved by the Secretary of the Interior, and performing other fiduciary duties.
Until 1955, the BIA’s responsibilities included providing health care services to American Indians and Alaska Natives. That year, the function was legislatively transferred as the Indian Health Service to the U.S. Public Health Service within the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, known now as the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), where it has remained to this day.
The Bureau of Indian Education (BIE), formerly known as the Office of Indian Education Programs (OIEP), is under the Assistant Secretary – Indian Affairs. It is responsible for the line direction and management of all BIE education functions, including the formation of policies and procedures, the supervision of all program activities, and the approval of the expenditure of funds appropriated for BIE education functions.
The BIE mission, which can be found in 25 C.F.R. Part 32.3, states that the BIE is to provide quality education opportunities from early childhood through life in accordance with the tribe’s needs for cultural and economic well-being in keeping with the wide diversity of Indian tribes and Alaska Native villages as distinct cultural and governmental entities. The BIE also shall manifest consideration of the whole person by taking into account the spiritual, mental, physical, and cultural aspects of the person within his or her family and tribal or village context.
The BIE school system has 184 elementary and secondary schools and dormitories located on 63 reservations in 23 states, including seven off-reservation boarding schools and 122 schools directly controlled by tribes and tribal school boards under contracts or grants with the BIE. The bureau also funds 66 residential programs for students at 52 boarding schools and at 14 dormitories housing those attending nearby tribal or public schools. The school system employs approximately 5,000 teachers, administrators, and support personnel, while an estimated 6,600 work in tribal school systems. In School Year 2006-07, the schools served almost 48,000 students.
In the area of postsecondary education, the BIE provides support to 24 tribal colleges and universities across the U.S. serving over 25,000 students, and directly operates two institutions of higher learning: the Haskell Indian Nations University (HINU) in Lawrence, Kansas, and the Southwest Indian Polytechnic Institute (SIPI) in Albuquerque, New Mexico. It also operates higher education scholarship programs for American Indians and Alaska Natives.
There have been three major legislative actions that restructured the Bureau of Indian Affairs with regard to education since the Snyder Act of 1921. The Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 introduced the teaching of Indian history and culture in BIA schools, which contrasted with the federal policy at the time of acculturating and assimilating Indian people through the BIA boarding school system. The Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975 (P.L. 90-638) gave authority to the tribes to contract with the BIA for the operation of local schools and to determine education programs suitable for their children. The Education Amendments Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-561) and further technical amendments (P.L. 98-511, 99-89, and 100-297) provided funds directly to tribal schools, empowered Indian school boards, permitted local hiring of teachers and staff, and established a direct line of authority between the OIEP Director and the Assistant Secretary – Indian Affairs.
In 2001, Congress passed the No Child Left Behind Act (P.L. 107-110) to bring additional requirements of accountability and academic achievement for supplemental program funds provided by the U.S. Department of Education through the OIEP to the schools. In 2006, the OIEP was formally elevated to bureau status by secretarial action and renamed the Bureau of Indian Education.