# Opposition Brief — Utah v. Shivwits Band of Paiute Indians (No. 05-1160)

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386016_0922%3A2

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Opposition Brief
- **Published:** January 1, 2006

## Text

No. 05-1160

FILED

JUN 1 2 2006

OFFICE OF THE
SUPREME COURT US.

In the Supreme Court of the Gnited States

STATE OF UTAH, ET AL., PETITIONERS

v.

SHIVWITS BAND OF PAIUTE INDIANS, ET AL.

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

BRIEF FOR THE FEDERAL RESPONDENTS

IN OPPOSITION

PAUL D. CLEMENT
Solicitor General
Counsel of Record
SUE ELLEN WOOLDRIDGE
Assistant Attorney General

ELLEN J. DURKEE

MATTHEW J. SANDERS
Attorneys
Departmeni of Justice
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001

(202) 514

-2217

QUESTION PRESENTED

Whether the provision of the Indian Reorganization
Act, 25 U.S.C. 461 et seq., that authorizes the Secretary
of the Interior to take real property into trust “for the
purpose of providing land for Indians,” 25 U.S.C. 465, is
an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power.

(I)

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
IS NOE 6 58 6 5s dc eWiveceewneensadsustisextscowsn 1
0 PEPE POPE RPE SPS EE LP Cee Seer POT Eee are 2
NS FOS ET OE IO PE Oe POPE TOR PEE E TE 2
PE ee re TOP CTT TE TTT OPTE TET CRT Lee 12
CR =. ccccndcsiwadeue eerie dense p RSe RRP reat Fee 25
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases:
A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295
Se ED eens hic bv 00 eee ears ceerd aerate 16
Alaska v. Babbitt, 75 F.3d 449 (9th Cir. 1995), cert.
Gemied, SID US. BIS CAG aoc s vvcedcsvescccerices 21
American Power & Light Co. v. SEC, 329 U.S. 90
SIR Gaile Suton Gs bn eons wackandtebasens 14, 16, 18
Block v. North Dakota ex rel. Bd. of Univ. & Sch.
Ramee EG Gs ae LD (nick vanced ovuwesacautaees 21
Carcieri v. Norton, No. 03-2647, 2005 WL 2216322
ee Sf Rene Rend nates eh tee ape Oe 12
Cass County v. Leech Lake Band of Chippewa
Fodtana, SECU S. 1GBCIGGD) ss cc ccccccceceseses 14
Central Mach. Co. v. Arizona State Tax Comm'n, 448
eM 5 kuiiga mde ae cuca Gena ndaeunab 20
City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation, 544 U.S.
ROE Sse a Cy nebeecdccewiecewanuentes 13, 23
Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians v. United
States, 110 F.3d 688 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 522
Rie, SUES CE Sn coat occ eevetewe an caapeieas. 12

(II)

Iv

Cases—Continued: Page
County of Yakima v. Confederated Tribes & Bands of

the Yakima Indian Nation, 502 U.S. 251 (1992) ...... 2
Department of the Interior v. South Dakota, 519 U.S.

OGRE 5 0. c4 ph Sec eawwe ed ews 10, 14, 15, 16, 20

Yakus v. United States, 321 U.S. 414 (1944) ........... 15

Vi

Statutes and regulations:

Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 551 et seg. ..... 21

Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. T40B0DM1) onc. ccc ccc ccccce 15
Endangered Species Act of 1973, 16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.:
OG LAs DD oo wb ics R Rane edbeecenntees 24
Res SE in pr ek nese ccéhebhiodeutnans 24

Highway Beautification Act of 1965, 28 U.S.C. 131(h) ... 11
Indian General Allotment Act, ch. 119, 24 Stat. 388 ... 2,17
Indian Land Consolidation Act, 25 U.S.C. 2201

San net poe barre oN eee En MOM eam Una ria 13
Indian Reorganization Act, ch. 576, 48 Stat. 984 (25
RE SaAr ee MRED oon ves eh hisec eee raebeeres passim
Oe eee RE 5.5 Songs oe ackneanseecenone 2,17
Pe ee Ras OE ic tice bees kwh aes p30 essa dee 3, 17
Ce OO, ON Bs ee 3,17
GF Ue ok hives canvas nccduceienxees 3, 17
DR ee ees: UE vk vkkcascéerckviisteeeend passim
ee We vb kas eicd ot wukoe beaxeeweuees 3
ST ss Fes re eter ere tea 3
i oo es pci pe ekceaeieeeees 3, 17
Ce Oe dbs eo vee sae ea a 3,17
SE er OER, ohare ke dedsgeuccakeemerken 3, 17
Da ee ete OE 5. pina siecucssokeaveecenaees 3, 17
Re She Te Se earn ee ry pepe pre 3, 17
E_B bik Losey SUR a aaa mate 3,17
ae ee Oe ha oie hn eee 3

Bie th Ry ee rman a rire Py 16

Vil

Statutes and regula » .—Continued: Page

Indian Reorganization Act Amendments of 1988, Pub.
L. No. 100-581, Tit. I, 102 Stat. 2938:

Shs DEE bvcdce In relevant part, 5 U.S.C. § 702 says:

An action {in federal court] seeking relief other than money
damages and stating a claim that an agency or an officer or
employee thereof acted or failed to act in an official capacity or
under color of legal authority, shall not be dismissed nor relief
therein be denied on the ground that it is against the United
States or that the United States is an indispensable party.

Id. (emphasis added).
6 In relevant part, 28 U.S.C. § 2409a(a) says:
The United States may be named as a party defendant in a
civil action under this section to adjudicate a disputed title to
real property in which the United States claims an interest,

other than a security interest or water rights. This section
does not apply to trust or restricted Indian lands. . . .

Id. (emphasis added).

9a

The government correctly argues that this case is
similar to Florida Dept. of Business Regulation v.
Dept. of Interior, 768 F.2d 1248 (11th Cir. 1985), in
which the court found no waiver of immunity from suit.
In that case, an Indian tribe purchased certain lands
containing Indian burial remains with the purpose of
preserving the remains and establishing a museum.
The United States, as here, took the property into trust
by virtue of a deed. Along with the museum, the tribe
opened a smoke shop, selling cigarettes tax free to the
general public. The State of Florida sought to have
the trust decision overturned under the APA on the
grounds that the Secretary of the Interior had violated
that law by failing to follow the Department’s regula-
tions when acquiring the land in trust. The Eleventh
Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal on the
grounds that the district court lacked jurisdiction to
hear the case. The appellate court held that although
the suit was “technically not one to quiet title, .
Congress’ decision to exempt Indian lands from the
waiver of sovereign immunity impliedly forbids the re-
lief sought here.” /d. at 1254.

The Defendants argue that the Tenth Circuit decision
McAlpine v. United States, 112 F.3d 1429 (10th Cir.
1997), rejects the Eleventh Circuit’s reasoning in Flor-
ida and demonstrates that the QTA is not a barrier to
issue of title presently before this court. In McAlpine,
the Tenth Circuit considered a case where a Native
American sued the United States and BIA after his re-
quest that land be taken into trust was denied. The
McAlpine Court then concluded that the Secretary of
Interior’s denial of acquisition of land to be held in
trust is reviewable under the APA. See McAlpine, 112
F.3d at 1435. This guidance from the Tenth Circuit,

10a

however, is not helpful to answer the legal issue here.
As the government points out, McAlpine deals with a
situation where the United States did not acquire title;
this case deals with the situation where the United
States did in fact acquire title. The acquisition of title
divests this court of jurisdiction to challenges to the
United States’ right to title as the Florida Court rec-
ognized. See Florida, 768 F.2d at 1254-55.

Several federal courts treating similar issues have
made similar distinctions. With regard to the QTA In-
dian lands exemption generally, “[a]s long as the United
States has a ‘colorable claim’ to a property interest
based on that property’s status as trust or restricted
Indian lands, the QTA renders the government immune
from suit.” State v. Babbitt, 75 F.3d 449, 451-52 (9th
Cir. 1995) cert. denied 519 U.S. 818, 117S. Ct. 70, 136 L.
Ed. 2d 30 (1996) [hereinafter “Alaska I”]. In addition,
the question of whether the government has a colorable
claim “extends no further than ‘a determination that
the government had some rationale,’ and that its posi-
tion ‘was not undertaken in either an arbitrary or
frivolous manner.’” Alaska v. Babbitt, 182 F.3d 672,
675 (9th Cir. 1999). Such a limitation is consistent with
the rule that “[tJhe immunity of the government applies
whether the government is right or wrong. The very
purpose of the doctrine is to prevent a judicial examina-
tion of the merits of the government’s position.” Wild-
man v. United States, 827 F.2d 1306, 1309 (9th Cir.
1987). Not only does the present case deal with facts
quite different from those in McAlpine, it deals with
facts that clearly show that the government now holds
title by virtue of a special warranty deed, a document
surely signifying at least a “colorable claim.”

lla

The Indian lands exception to the QTA bars the
State’s claim in this case even though the State claims
the right to regulate the lands in question, because, as
discussed above, underlying the State’s claim is a chal-
lenge to the government’s title to the land. See Rosette
Inc. v. United States, 141 F.3d 1394 (10th Cir. 1998);
Shawnee Trail Conservancy v. United States Dept. of
Ag., 222 F.3d 383 (7th Cir. 2000). Moreover, while no
parties cite these cases, there are cases in which the
Indian Lands exemption under the QTA was held to
apply even though it was unclear whether the land was,
or ultimately would be, held in trust for Indians. See,
e.g., Mashpee Tribe v. New Seabury Corp., 427 F. Supp.
899, 903 (D. Mass. 1977) (finding that government had
not waived immunity even if it had not been deter-
mined that the land at issue is “trust or restricted In-
dian lands” within meaning of QTA exemption provi-
sion); accord State of Alaska v. Babbitt, 38 F.8d 1068
(9th Cir. 1994) [hereinafter “Alaska IT’). Indeed, other
courts have explicitly held that “Congress did not in-
tend to waive its sovereign immunity with respect to
quiet title action in cases which would impact on Indian
ownership rights.” Newman v. United States, 504 F.
Supp. 1176, 1178 (D. Ariz. 1981) (emphasis added). In
Newman, the court found irrelevant the fact that there
had been no definative prior determination of whether
the disputed land was “trust or restricted Indian lands”
with regard to the issue of whether the government en-
joyed immunity under statute; rather the court found
that the claim to title asserted by the government
merely had to be substantial. /d. at 1178-79. As such,
the Indian lands exemption to the QTA prohibits dis-
turbing the government’s holding title, even though the
procedural posture of this case has mandated that the

12a

BIA conduct NEPA review before issuing a decision to
hold the title in trust.

Admittedly, there is an ambiguity or tension in the
distinction between the act of the government holding
title and the act of the BIA deciding to hold the land in
trust. Under binding Supreme Court and Tenth Circuit
precedent, however, such tensions and ambiguity do
not suggest a different disposition of the matter and,
indeed, suggest rather that such ambiguities are re-
solved in favor of the Shivwits. “The canons of con-
struction applicable in Indian law are rooted in the
unique trust relationship between the United States
and the Indians.” Montana v. Blackfeet Tribe of Indi-
ans, 471 U.S. 759, 766, 105 S. Ct. 2399, 85 L. Ed. 2d 753
(1985) (quotation marks, citation, and alteration omit-
ted). In issues arising under Indian law, “statutes are
to be construed liberally in favor of the Indians, with
ambiguous provisions interpreted to their benefit.” Jd.
citing McClanahan v. Arizona State Tax Comm’n, 411
U.S. 164, 174, 93 8. Ct. 1257, 36 L. Ed. 2d 129 (1973);
Choate v. Trapp, 224 U.S. 665, 675, 32 S. Ct. 565, 56
L.Ed. 941 (1912); United States v. 162 MegaMania
Gambling Devices, 231 F.3d 718, 718 (10th Cir. 2000);
Newman, 504 F. Supp. at 1178-79. Interpreting the
QTA as the courts above suggest is not only supported
by these canons of statutory interpretation, but also by
the legislative intent behind the Indian lands exception
to the QTA. That history demonstrates that Congress
intended to prevent prejudice to Indian rights and to
prevent the abridgment of “the historic relationship be-
tween the Federal Government and the Indians with-
out the consent of the Indians.” Quiet Title Act, Pub. L.
92-562, 1972 U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News, pp.
4547, 4557. As the Newman court put it: “It is clear,

13a

therefore, that Congress did not intend to waive its
sovereign immunity with respect to quiet title action in
cases which would impact on Indian ownership rights.”
504 F. Supp. at 1178 (emphasis added).

In sum, therefore, the Indian lands exception to the
QTA bars disturbing the government’s title in trust to
the subject property in dispute. This finding leaves the
matter in the following situation. The government’s
claim to title in trust remains undisturbed (indeed
barred from judicial review by the QTA). Neverthe-
less, under the APA, the decision by the BIA to accept
the land in trust is subject to judicial review under
NEPA. Thus, the procedural requirements mandated
by the August 11, 2000 order still stand, as does the
court’s preliminary injunction order. The Defendants’
remedy is largely procedural. Defendants cannot chal-
lenge the status of the title in trust, as prohibited by
the QTA. However, Defendants may challenge the pro-
cedures taken in reaching the decision by the BIA to
hold the land in trust, as recognized in the court’s pre-
vious order. The Defendants’ remedies are limited, as
is legally proper, to procedural protections and their
rights, as the law dictates, find voice and representation
in the NEPA process and APA review.

B. Defendants’ Remaining Arguments Supporting
Summary Judgment are Not Ripe and are Barred
by the Abstention Doctrine which Prohibits the
Court from Issuing Advisory Opinions

Defendants alternatively seek summary judgment on
the issue of State and local land regulation, arguing that
the land is neither held in trust for the tribe nor that it
is “Indian Country,” either of which designation might
prohibit State regulation of the land. While the issue of

14a

title, as discussed above, is settled by the QTA, the is-
sue of the State’s right to regulate cannot be answered
at the present time because the Department of the In-
terior and the BIA have not made a decision regarding
whether the land will be held in trust. Thus, at present,
it is impossible for the court to determine with cer-
tainty whether the land is held (or will be held) in trust
or whether it is “Indian Country” under the legal defi-
nition of that term.

The United States Constitution limits this court’s ju-
risdiction to those involving actual “cases” and “contro-
versies.” U.S. Const. Art. III, § 2, cl. 1. The Constitu-
tion’s case and controversy requirement prevents this
court from issuing “advisory opinions” and from consid-
ering cases issues which are not ripe. See Public Serv-
ice Company of Colorado v. United States Environ-
mental Protection Agency, 225 F.3d 1144, 1148 n.4 (10th
Cir. 2000) (discussing prohibition against advisory
opinions); United States v. Chavez-Palacios, 30 F.3d
1290, 1292-93 (10th Cir. 1994) (same); New Mexicans for
Bill Richardson v. Gonzales, 64 F.3d 1495, 1499 (10th
Cir. 1995) (discussing ripeness requirement); /nitiative
and Referendum Institute v. Walker, 161 F. Supp. 2d
1307, 1310-11 (D. Utah 2001) (same).

For the court to make the factual determination on
the actual status of the land for regulatory purposes-as
Indian Country, as Native held non-Indian Country, or
as trust land (any of which category may or may not
subject the land to State and local regulation)-the court
must first know what the final decisions of the BIA and
the Secretary of the Interior are, and this information is
unavailable to the court until the NEPA process is
complete. The question of whether the Defendants may
regulate the land is therefore not ripe, and the court is

15a

unable to issue an opinion on this line of argumentation
due to the Constitution’s prohibition of the issuance of
advisory opinions.

Order

For the reasons set forth above, Defendants motions
to vacate preliminary injunction order and for summary
judgment are DENIED.

16a

APPENDIX B

Act of June 18, 1934, ch. 576, 48 Stat. 984 (25 U.S.C.
641 et seq.) provides in pertinent part:

§ 461. Allotment of land on Indian reservations

On and after June 18, 1934, no land of any Indian res-
ervation, created or set apart by treaty or agreement
with the Indians, Act of Congress, Executive order,
purchase, or otherwise, shall be allotted in severalty to
any Indian.

§ 462. Existing periods of trust and restrictions on
alienation extended

The existing periods of trust placed upon any Indian
lands and any restriction on alienation thereof are ex-
tended and continued until otherwise directed by Con-

gress.
§ 463. Restoration of lands to tribal ownership

(a) Protection of existing rights

The Secretary of the Interior, if he shall find it to be
in the public interest, is hereby authorized to restore to
tribal ownership the remaining surplus lands of any In-
dian reservation heretofore opened, or authorized to be
opened, to sale, or any other form of disposal by Pre-
sidential proclamation, or by any of the public-land laws
of the United States: Provided, however, That valid
rights or claims of any persons to any lands so with-
drawn existing on the date of the withdrawal shall not
be affected by this Act: Provided further, That this sec-
tion shall not apply to lands within any reclamation pro-
ject heretofore authorized in any Indian reservation.

x k KK

17a

§ 464. [As amended by Pub. L. No. 109-221, §
501(b)(1), 120 Stat. 343-344.] Transfer and
exchange of restricted Indian lands and shares
of Indian tribes and corporations

Except as provided in this Act, no sale, devise, gift,
exchange, or other transfer of restricted Indian lands or
of shares in the assets of any Indian tribe or corporation
organized under this Act shall be made or approved:
Provided, That such lands or interests may, with the
approval of the Secretary of the Interior, be sold, de-
vised, or otherwise transferred to the Indian tribe in
which the lands or shares are located or from which the
shares were derived, or to a successor corporation:
Provided further, That, subject to section 8(b) of the
American Indian Probate Reform Act of 2004 (Public
Law 108-374; 25 U.S.C. 2201 note), lands and shares de-
scribed in the preceding proviso shall descend or be de-
vised to any member of an Indian tribe or corporation
described in that proviso or to an heir or lineal descen-
dant of such a member in accordance with the Indian
Land Consolidation Act (25 U.S.C. 2201 et seq.), in-
cluding a tribal probate code approved, or regulations
promulgated under, that Act: Provided further, That
the Secretary of the Interior may authorize any volun-
tary exchanges of lands of equa! value and the volun-
tary exchange of shares of equai value whenever such
exchange, in the judgment of the Secretary, is expedi-
ent and beneficial for or compatible with the proper
consolidation of Indian lands and for the benefit of co-
operative organizations.

18a

§ 465. Acquisition of lands, water rights or surface
rights; appropriation; title to lands; tax exemp-
tion

The Secretary of the Interior is authorized, in his dis-
cretion, to acquire, through purchase, relinquishment,
gift, exchange, or assignment, any interest in lands, wa-
ter rights, or surface rights to lands, within or without
existing reservations, including trust or otherwise re-
stricted allotments, whether the allottee be living or
deceased, for the purpose of providing land for Indians.

For the acquisition of such lands, interests in lands,
water rights, and surface rights, and for expenses inci-
dent to such acquisition, there is authorized to be ap-
propriated, out of any funds in the Treasury not other-
wise appropriated, a sum not to exceed $2,000,000 in
any one fiscal year: Provided, That no part of such
funds shall be used to acquire additional land outside of
the exterior boundaries of Navajo Indian Reservation
for the Navajo Indians in Arizona, nor in New Mexico,
in the event that legislation to define the exterior
boundaries of the Navajo Indian Reservation in New
Mexico, and for other purposes, or similar legislation,
becomes law.

The unexpended balances of any appropriations made
pursuant to this section shall remain available until ex-
pended.

Title to any lands or rights acquired pursuant to this
Act or the Act of July 28, 1955 (69 Stat. 392), as
amended (25 U.S.C. 608 et seq.) shall be taken in the
name of the United States in trust for the Indian tribe
or individual Indian for which the land is acquired, and
such lands or rights shall be exempt from State and lo-
cal taxation.

19a

§ 466. Indian forestry units; rules and regulations

The Secretary of the Interior is directed to make
rules and regulations for the operation and manage-
ment of Indian forestry units on the principle of sus-
tained-yield management, to restrict the number of
livestock grazed on Indian range units to the estimated
carrying capacity of such ranges, and to promulgate
such other rules and regulations as may be necessary to
protect the range from deterioration, to prevent soil
erosion, to assure full utilization of the range, and like
purposes.

§ 467. New Indian reservations

The Secretary of the Interior is hereby authorized to
proclaim new Indian reservations on lands acquired
pursuant to any authority conferred by this Act, or to
add such lands to existing reservations: Provided, That
lands added to existing reservations shall be designated
for the exclusive use of Indians entitled by enrollment
or by tribal membership to residence at such reserva-
tions.

* kK KX

§ 469. Indian corporations; appropriation for organiz-
ing

There is hereby authorized to be appropriated, out of
any funds in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated,
such sums as may be necessary, but not to exceed
$250,000 in any fiscal year, to be expended at the order
of the Secretary of the Interior, in defraying the ex-
penses of organizing Indian chartered corporations or
other organizations created under this Act.

20a

§ 470. Revolving fund; appropriation for loans

There is authorized to be appropriated, out of any
funds in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the
sum of $20,000,000 to be established as a revolving fund
from which the Secretary of the Interior, under such
rules and regulations as he may prescribe, may make
loans to Indian chartered corporations for the purpose
of promoting the economic development of such tribes
and of their members, and may defray the expenses of
administering such loans. Repayment of amounts
loaned under this authorization shall be credited to the
revolving fund and shall be available for the purposes
for which the fund is established.

§ 471. Vocational and trade schools; appropriation for
tuition

There is authorized to be appropriated, out of any
funds in the United States Treasury not otherwise ap-
propriated, a sum not to exceed $250,000 annually, to-
gether with any unexpended balances of previous ap-
propriations made pursuant to this section, for loans to
Indians for the payment of tuition and other expenses
in recognized vocational and trade schools: Provided,
That not more than $50,000 of such sum shall be avail-
able for loans to Indian students in high schools and
colleges. Such loans shali be reimbursable under rules
established by the Commissioner of Indian Affairs.

§ 472. Standards for Indians appointed to Indian Of-
fice

The Secretary of the Interior is directed to establish
standards of health, age, character, experience, knowl-
edge, and ability for Indians who may be appointed to
the various positions maintained, now or hereafter, by
the Indian Office, in the administration of functions or

Zla

services affecting any Indian tribe. Such qualified In-
dians shall hereafter have the preference to appoint-
ment to vacancies in any such positions.

* ke K KK

§ 476. Organization of Indian tribes; constitution and
bylaws and amendment thereof; special elec-
tion

(a) Adoption; effective date

Any Indian tribe shall have the right to organize for
its common welfare, and may adopt an appropriate con-
stitution and bylaws, and any amendments thereto,
which shall become effective when—

(1) ratified by a majority vote of the adult mem-
bers of the tribe or tribes at a special election author-
ized and called by the Secretary under such rules and
regulations as the Secretary may prescribe; and

(2) approved by the Secretary pursuant to sub-
section (d) of this section.

ke Ke KF

(e) Vested rights and powers; advisement of presubmit-
ted budget estimates

In addition to all powers vested in any Indian tribe or
tribal council by existing law, the constitution adopted
by said tribe shall also vest in such tribe or its tribal
council the following rights and powers: To employ le-
gal counsel; to prevent the sale, disposition, lease, or
encumbrance of tribal lands, interests in lands, or other
tribal assets without the consent of the tribe; and to ne-
gotiate with the Federal, State, and local governments.
The Secretary shall advise such tribe or its tribal coun-
cil of all appropriation estimates or Federal projects for

22a

the benefit of the tribe prior to the submission of such
estimates to the Office of Management and Budget and
the Congress.

ek Kk

§ 477. Incorporation of Indian tribes; charter; ratifi-
cation by election

The Secretary of the Interior may, upon petition by
any tribe, issue a charter of incorporation to such tribe:
Provided, That such charter shall not become operative
until ratified by the governing body of such tribe. Such
charter may convey to the incorporated tribe the power
to purchase, take by gift, or bequest, or otherwise, own,
hold, manage, operate, and dispose of property of every
description, real and personal, including the power to
purchase restricted Indian lands and to issue in ex-
change therefor interests in corporate property, and
such further powers as may be incidental to the conduct
of corporate business, not inconsistent with law, but no
authority shall be granted to sell, mortgage, or lease for
a period exceeding twenty-five years any trust or re-
stricted lands included in the limits of the reservation.
Any charter so issued shall not be revoked or surren-
dered except by Act of Congress.

§ 478. Acceptance optional

This Act shall not apply to any reservation wherein a
majority of the adult Indians, voting at a special elec-
tion duly called by the Secretary of the Interior, shall
vote against its application. It shall be the duty of the
Secretary of the Interior, within one year after June 18,
1934, to call such an election, which election shall be
held by secret ballot upon thirty days’ notice.

23a

§ 479. Definitions

The term “Indian” as used in this Act shall include all
persons of Indian descent who are members of any rec-
ognized Indian tribe now under Federal jurisdiction,
and all persons who are descendants of such members
who were, on June 1, 1934, residing within the present
boundaries of any Indian reservation, and shall further
include all other persons of one-half or more Indian
blood. For the purposes of this Act, Eskimos and other
aboriginal peoples of Alaska shall be considered Indi-
ans. The term “tribe” wherever used in this Act shall
be construed to refer to any Indian tribe, organized
band, pueblo, or the Indians residing on one reserva-
tion. The words “adult Indians” wherever used in this
Act shall be construed to refer to Indians who have at-
tained the age of twenty-one years.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386016_0922%3A2. Public record. Not legal advice.