View source for Federally recognized tribe

{{Short description|Tribes recognized as sovereign by the United States}}
{{Infobox subdivision type
| name               = Federally recognized tribe
| alt_name           = [[Domestic dependent nations|Domestic dependent nation]]
| map                = [[File:Indian Reservations.png|330px]]
| category           = [[Political division]]s
| territory          = [[United States]]
| start_date         =
| current_number     = 574
| number_date        =
| population_range   = 
| government         = [[List of federally recognized tribes by state|Federally recognized tribe]]
| subdivision        = [[Indian reservation]]
}}

A '''federally recognized tribe''' is a [[Tribe (Native American)|Native American tribe]] recognized by the [[United States]] [[Bureau of Indian Affairs]] as holding a government-to-government relationship with the US federal [[Government of the United States|government]].<ref name="faq">{{cite web |title=Why Tribes Exist Today in the United States |url=https://www.bia.gov/frequently-asked-questions |website=Frequently Asked Questions |publisher=Bureau of Indian Affairs, US Department of the Interior |access-date=17 May 2023 |archive-date=July 14, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170714135251/https://www.bia.gov/FAQs/ |url-status=live }}</ref>  In the [[United States]], the Native American tribe is a fundamental unit of sovereign tribal government. As the [[Department of the Interior]] explains, "federally recognized tribes are recognized as possessing certain inherent rights of self-government (i.e., tribal sovereignty)...."<ref name=faq/> The constitution grants to the [[U.S. Congress]] the right to interact with tribes. 

In the 1831 [[Supreme Court of the United States]] case ''[[Cherokee Nation v. Georgia]]'' [[Chief Justice of the United States]] [[John Marshall]] wrote that a [[Native Americans in the United States|Native American]] government is a "[[domestic dependent nation]]'" whose relationship to the [[United States]] is like that of a "ward to its guardian". The case was a [[List of landmark court decisions in the United States|landmark decision]] which led to the United States recognizing over 574 [[List of Native American Tribal Entities|federally recognized tribal governments]] and 326 [[List of Indian reservations in the United States|Indian reservations]] which are legally classified as domestic dependent nations with [[Tribal sovereignty in the United States|tribal sovereignty rights]]. The Supreme Court held in ''[[United States v. Sandoval]]''<ref>''United States v. Sandoval'', 231 U.S.&nbsp;28 (1913)</ref> "that Congress may bring a community or body of people within range of this power by arbitrarily calling them an Indian tribe, but only that in respect of distinctly Indian communities the questions whether, to what extent, and for what time they shall be recognized and dealt with as dependent tribes" (at 46).<ref>Sheffield (1998) p. 56</ref>  Federal [[Native American recognition in the United States|tribal recognition]] grants to tribes the right to certain benefits, and is largely <!-- controlled bu US Federal law and --> administered by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA).

While trying to determine which groups were eligible for federal recognition in the 1970s, government officials became aware of the need for consistent procedures. To illustrate, several federally unrecognized tribes encountered obstacles in bringing [[land claim]]s; ''[[United States v. Washington]]'' (1974) was a court case that affirmed the fishing [[treaty rights]] of [[Washington (state)|Washington]] tribes; and other tribes demanded that the U.S.&nbsp;government recognize [[aboriginal title]]s. All the above culminated in the [[Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975]], which legitimized tribal entities by partially restoring [[Native American self-determination]].

==Native American sovereignty and the Constitution==
The [[Constitution of the United States|United States Constitution]] mentions Native American tribes three times:

* [[Article One of the United States Constitution#Clause 3: Apportionment of Representatives and taxes|Article I, Section 2, Clause 3]] states that "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States ... excluding Indians not taxed."<ref>[[s:Constitution of the United States of America#Article I|Constitution of the United States of America: Article. I.]]</ref> According to [[Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States|Story's ''Commentaries on the U.S. Constitution'']], "There were Indians, also, in several, and probably in most, of the states at that period, who were not treated as citizens, and yet, who did not form a part of independent communities or tribes, exercising general sovereignty and powers of government within the boundaries of the states."
* [[Article One of the United States Constitution#Section 8: Powers of Congress|Article I, Section 8]] of the Constitution states that "Congress shall have the power to regulate Commerce with foreign nations and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes",<ref name=Policy-Center>American Indian Policy Center. 2005. St. Paul, MN. 4 October 2008</ref> determining that Indian tribes were separate from the federal government, the states, and foreign nations;<ref>''[[Cherokee Nations v. Georgia]]'', 30 U.S. (5 Pet.) 1 (1831)</ref> and
* [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|The Fourteenth Amendment]], Section 2 amends the apportionment of representatives in Article I, Section 2 above.<ref>[[s:Additional amendments to the United States Constitution|Additional amendments to the United States Constitution]]</ref>

These constitutional provisions, and subsequent interpretations by the Supreme Court (see below), are today often summarized in three principles of U.S. Indian law:<ref>Charles F. Wilkinson, [https://books.google.com/books?id=IHKXAAAAMAAJ Indian tribes as sovereign governments: a sourcebook on federal-tribal history, law, and policy], AIRI Press, 1988</ref><ref name=deskbook>Conference of Western Attorneys General, American Indian Law Deskbook, University Press of Colorado, 2004</ref><ref>N. Bruce Duthu, [https://books.google.com/books?id=8u0UstccznkC American Indians and the Law], Penguin/Viking, 2008</ref>
* '''Territorial sovereignty''': Tribal authority on Indian land is [[Organic law|organic]] and is not granted by the states in which Indian lands are located.
* '''Plenary power doctrine''': Congress, and not the [[United States Executive Branch|Executive Branch]] or [[United States Judicial Branch|Judicial Branch]], has ultimate authority with regard to matters affecting the Indian tribes. Federal courts give greater deference to Congress on Indian matters than on other subjects.
* '''Trust relationship''': The federal government has a "duty to protect" the tribes, implying (courts have found) the necessary legislative and executive authorities to effect that duty.<ref>Robert J. McCarthy, The Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Federal Trust Obligation to American Indians, 19 BYU J. PUB. L. 1 (December, 2004)</ref>

==History==
===Colonial and early U.S. history===
From the beginning of the [[European colonization of the Americas]], Europeans often removed Indigenous peoples from their homelands. The means varied, including treaties made under considerable duress, forceful ejection, violence, and in a few cases voluntary moves based on mutual agreement. The removal caused many problems such as tribes losing the means of livelihood by being restricted to a defined area, poor quality of land for agriculture, and hostility between tribes.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.ushistory.org/us/40d.asp |title=40d. Life on the Reservations |website=U.S. History |access-date=11 August 2024}}</ref>

Early English settlers in the Americas entered into treaties with Native American tribes as a method of legitimizing their conquests in the face of competing claims by the [[Spanish Empire]] and violent resistance from the tribes themselves.<ref name="Glover_Page_9">{{cite book |last1=Glover |first1=Jeffrey |title=Paper Sovereigns: Anglo-Native Treaties and the Law of Nations, 1604-1664 |date=2014 |publisher=University of Pennsylvania Press |location=Philadelphia |isbn=9780812245967 |pages=9–14 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=7ds8AwAAQBAJ&pg=PA9}}</ref>  Applying the term "treaty" to such unequal relationships may seem paradoxical from a modern perspective because in modern English, the word "treaty" usually connotes an agreement between two states of [[Westphalian system|theoretically equal sovereignty]], not an agreement between conquered people and a conqueror.<ref name="Glover_Page_9" /> However, in premodern times, it was common for European princes to routinely enter into unequal treaties with lesser dependent powers.<ref name="Glover_Page_9" />

The first reservation was established by the [[Easton Treaty]] on August 29, 1758, between the chiefs of thirteen Native American nations, representing tribes of the [[Iroquois]], [[Lenape|Lenape (Delaware)]], and [[Shawnee]], and the colonial governments of [[Province of New Jersey|New Jersey]] and [[Province of Pennsylvania|Pennsylvania]]. Located in [[South Jersey|southern New Jersey]], it was called [[Brotherton Indian]] Reservation<ref>{{cite web |title=This Day in Geographic History: First Indian Reservation |url=https://www.nationalgeographic.org/thisday/aug29/first-indian-reservation/ |website=National Geographic Society |access-date=July 12, 2018 |language=en |date=July 18, 2014 |archive-date=July 12, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180712222115/https://www.nationalgeographic.org/thisday/aug29/first-indian-reservation/ |url-status=dead}}</ref> and also ''Edgepillock''<ref name="AccessibleArchives">{{cite web |last1=Thomas |first1=JD |title=The Colonies' First and New Jersey's Only Indian Reservation |url=http://www.accessible-archives.com/2013/08/colonies-first-new-jerseys-indian-reservation/ |website=Accessible Archives Inc. |access-date=July 12, 2018 |date=August 29, 2013 |archive-date=May 7, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210507172435/https://www.accessible-archives.com/2013/08/colonies-first-new-jerseys-indian-reservation/ |url-status=dead }}</ref> or ''Edgepelick''.<ref name="Kepharts">{{cite web |last1=Kephart |first1=Bill & Mary |title=The Kepharts: Cohawkin, Raccoon Creek, Narraticon all names left by Lenni-Lenape in Gloucester County |url=https://www.nj.com/gloucester/voices/index.ssf/2010/11/the_kepharts_cohawkin_raccoon.html |website=NJ.com |date=November 7, 2010 |access-date=July 12, 2018 |quote=In 1758, the Colonial Legislature purchased land in Burlington County for a reservation. It was the first Indian Reservation in America and was called Edgepelick. Governor [[Sir Francis Bernard, 1st Baronet|Francis Bernard]] called it Brotherton. Today the area is known as Indian Mills. In 1801, an act was passed directing the sale of Brotherton, with the proceeds used to send the remaining [[Lenape]] to the Stockbridge Reservation near Oneida, New York. There they formed a settlement called Statesburg.}} November 7, 2010</ref> The area was {{cvt|3284|acre|km2}}.<ref name="AccessibleArchives"/> Today it is called [[Indian Mills, New Jersey|Indian Mills]] in [[Shamong Township, New Jersey|Shamong Township]].<ref name="AccessibleArchives"/><ref name="Kepharts"/>

In 1764 the British government's Board of Trade proposed the "Plan for the Future Management of Indian Affairs".<ref name=":4" /> Although never adopted formally, the plan established the British government's expectation that land would only be bought by colonial governments, not individuals, and that land would only be purchased at public meetings.<ref name=":4" /> Additionally, this plan dictated that the Indians would be properly consulted when ascertaining and defining the boundaries of colonial settlement.<ref name=":4">[https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Franklin/01-13-02-0159 Remarks on the Plan for Regulating the Indian Trade, September 1766 – October 1766], ''Founders Online''</ref>

The private contracts that once characterized the sale of Indian land to various individuals and groups—from farmers to towns—were replaced by [[treaties]] between sovereigns.<ref name=":4" /> This protocol was adopted by the United States Government after the American Revolution.<ref name=":4" />

On March 11, 1824, U.S. Vice President [[John C. Calhoun]] founded the [[Bureau of Indian Affairs|Office of Indian Affairs]] (now the Bureau of Indian Affairs) as a division of the [[United States Department of War]] (now the [[United States Department of Defense]]), to solve the land problem with 38 treaties with American Indian tribes.<ref>{{Cite journal |author=Belko, William S. |title=John C. Calhoun and the Creation of the Bureau of Indian Affairs: an Essay on Political Rivalry, Ideology, and Policymaking in the Early Republic |journal=South Carolina Historical Magazine |year=2004 |volume=105 |issue=3 |pages=170–97 |jstor=27570693}}</ref>

===The Marshall Trilogy, 1823–1832===
[[File:Hassanamisco Nipmuc Indian Sign.jpg|thumb|250px|Hassanamisco Nipmuc Indian Reservation sign]]
The Marshall Trilogy is a set of three Supreme Court decisions in the early nineteenth century affirming the legal and political standing of Indian nations.

* ''[[Johnson v. McIntosh]]'' (1823), holding that private citizens could not purchase lands from Native Americans.
* ''[[Cherokee Nation v. Georgia]]'' (1831), holding the Cherokee nation a "domestic dependent nation", with a relationship to the United States like that of a "ward to its guardian".
* ''[[Worcester v. Georgia]]'' (1832), which laid out the relationship between tribes and the state and federal governments, stating that the federal government was the sole authority to deal with Indian nations.{{r|TRR 2021-03-18}}

Marshall’s phrasing "laid the groundwork for future protection of tribal sovereignty by Marshall and his immediate successors, but the characterization also created an opportunity for much later courts to discover limits to tribal sovereignty inherent in domestic dependent status. Marshall’s reference to tribes as 'wards' was to have an equally mixed history".<ref>{{cite book|last=Canby Jr.|first=William C.|title=American Indian Law in a Nutshell (Nutshells)|page=20}}></ref>

=== Letters from the presidents of the United States on Indian reservations (1825–1837)===
Indian Treaties, and Laws and Regulations Relating to Indian Affairs (1825) was a document signed by President [[Andrew Jackson]]<ref>Andrew Jackson, "A letter by Andrew Jackson, President of the United States of America, Indian Treaties and Laws and Regulations Relating to Indian Affairs: To Which Is Added, An Appendix. Way and Gideon, Printers", 1826.</ref> in which he states that "we have placed the land reserves in a better state for the benefit of society" with approval of Indigenous reservations before 1850.<ref>Andrew Jackson, "A letter by Andrew Jackson, President of the United States of America, Indian Treaties and Laws and Regulations Relating to Indian Affairs: To Which Is Added, An Appendix. Way and Gideon, Printers", 1826, 580.</ref> The letter is signed by [[Isaac Shelby]] and Jackson. It discusses several regulations regarding the Native Americans and the approval of Indigenous segregation and the reservation system.

President [[Martin Van Buren]] negotiated a treaty with the Saginaw Chippewas in 1837 to build a lighthouse. The President of the United States of America was directly involved in the creation of new [[Treaty|treaties]] regarding Indian Reservations before 1850. Van Buren stated that indigenous reservations are "all their reserves of land in the state of Michigan, on the principle of said reserves being sold at the public land offices for their benefit and the actual proceeds being paid to them."<ref name="Martin Van Buren 1837">Martin Van Buren, President of the United States of America, "Treaties between the United States and the Saginaw tribe of Chippewas", 1837.</ref> The agreement dictated that the indigenous tribe sell their land to build a lighthouse.<ref name="Martin Van Buren 1837"/>

A treaty signed by John Forsyth, the Secretary of State on behalf of Van Buren, also dictates where indigenous peoples must live in terms of the reservation system in America between the [[Oneida people|Oneida People]] in 1838. This treaty allows the indigenous peoples five years on a specific reserve "the west shores of Saganaw bay".<ref>John Forsyth, the Secretary of State On behalf of, President Buren, Martin Van of the United States. Martin Van Buren, "Treaty Between: The United States of America and the First Christian and Orchard Parties of the Oneida Indians,''"'' 1838.</ref> The creation of reservations for indigenous people of America could be as little as a five-year approval before 1850. Article two of the treaty claims "the reserves on the river Angrais and at Rifle river, of which said Indians are to have the usufruct and occupancy for five years." Indigenous people had restraints pushed on them by the five-year allowance.

=== Early land sales in Virginia (1705–1713) ===
Scholarly author Buck Woodard used executive papers from Governor [[William H. Cabell]] in his article, "Indian Land sales and allotment in Antebellum Virginia" to discuss Indigenous reservations in America before 1705, specifically in Virginia.<ref name="Buck Woodard 2016">Buck Woodard, "Indian Land sales and allotment in Antebellum Virginia: trustees, tribal agency, and the Nottoway Reservation", ''American Nineteenth Century History'' 17. no. 2 (2016): page number. 161-180.</ref> He claims "the colonial government again recognized the Nottoway's land rights by treaty in 1713, at the conclusion of the [[Tuscarora War|Tuscaro War]]."<ref name="Buck Woodard 2016"/> The indigenous peoples of America had land treaty agreements as early as 1713.<ref name="Buck Woodard 2016"/>

=== The beginning of the Indigenous Reservation System in America (1763–1834) ===
[[File:British colonies 1763-76 shepherd1923.PNG|thumb|upright=1.33|The British colonies in North America from 1763 to 1775, at the outbreak of the [[American Revolutionary War]], including the locations of Indian Reserve (highlighted in grey) and the proposed colonies of [[Charlotiana]], [[Transylvania Colony|Transylvania]], and [[Vandalia (colony)|Vandalia]]]]
The American Indigenous Reservation system started with "the [[Royal Proclamation of 1763]], where [[Kingdom of Great Britain|Great Britain]] set aside an enormous resource for Indians in the territory of the present United States."<ref>James E Togerson "Indians against Immigrants: Old Rivals, New Rules: A Brief Review and Comparison of Indian Law in the Contiguous United States, Alaska, and Canada." ''American Indian Law Review'' 14, no. 1 (1988), 58.</ref> The United States put forward another act when "Congress passed the [[Indian Removal Act]] in 1830".<ref name="Immigrants 1988">James E Togerson "Indians against Immigrants: Old Rivals, New Rules: A Brief Review and Comparison of Indian Law in the Contiguous United States, Alaska, and Canada." ''American Indian Law Review'' 14, no. 1 (1988), 57–103.</ref> A third act pushed through was "the federal government relocated "portions of [the] 'Five Civilized Tribes' from the southeastern states in the [[Nonintercourse Act|Non-Intercourse Act of 1834]]."<ref>James E Togerson "Indians against Immigrants: Old Rivals, New Rules: A Brief Review and Comparison of Indian Law in the Contiguous United States, Alaska, and Canada." ''American Indian Law Review'' 14, no. 1 (1988), 59.</ref> All three of these laws set into motion the Indigenous Reservation system in the United States of America, resulting in the forceful removal of Indigenous peoples into specific land Reservations.<ref name="Immigrants 1988"/>

=== Treaty between America and the Menominee Nation (1831) ===
Scholarly author James Oberly discusses "The [[Treaty of Washington, with Menominee (1831)|Treaty of 1831]] between the Menominee Nation and the United States"<ref name="James Oberly 1996">James Oberly, ""Decision on Duck Creek: Two Green Bay Reservations and Their Boundaries, 1816–1996", ''American Indian Culture & Research Journal'' 24, no. 3 (2000): 39–76.</ref> in his article, "Decision on Duck Creek: Two Green Bay Reservations and Their Boundaries, 1816–1996", showing yet another treaty regarding Indigenous Reservations before 1850. There is a conflict between the Menomee Nation and the [[Wisconsin|State of Wisconsin]] and "the 1831 Menomee Treaty … ran the boundary between the lands of the Oneida, known in the Treaty as the "New York Indians".<ref name="James Oberly 1996"/> This Treaty from 1831 is the cause of conflicts and is disputed because the land was good hunting grounds.

=== 1834 Trade and Intercourse Act (1834) ===
[[File:Indian Country-Territory 1834.jpg|thumb|upright=1|The Indian Country (highlighted in red) in 1834]]
The [[Nonintercourse Act|Trade and Intercourse Act of 1834]] says "In the 1834 Indian Trade and Intercourse Act, the United States defined the boundaries of Indian County."<ref name="William J Bauer 1855">William J Bauer, "The Rise and Fall of Indian Country, 1825–1855", ''History: Reviews of New Books'' 36, no. 2 (Winter 2008): 50.</ref> Also, "For Unrau, Indigenous Country is less on Indigenous homeland and more a place where the U.S. removed Indians from east of the Mississippi River and applied unique laws."<ref name="William J Bauer 1855"/> The United States of America applied laws on Indigenous Reservations depending on where they were located like the [[Mississippi River]]. This act came too, because "the federal government began to compress Indigenous lands because it needed to send troops to Texas during the Mexican-American War and protect American immigration traveling to Oregon and California."<ref name="ReferenceA">William J Bauer, "The Rise and Fall of Indian Country, 1825–1855", ''History: Reviews of New Books'' 36, no. 2 (Winter 2008): 51.</ref> The Federal Government of America had their own needs and desires for Indigenous Land Reservations. He says, "the reconnaissance of explorers and other American officials understood that Indigenous Country possessed good land, bountiful game, and potential mineral resources."<ref name="ReferenceA"/> The American Government claimed Indigenous land for their own benefits with these creations of Indigenous Land Reservations .

=== Indigenous Reservation System in Texas (1845) ===
States such as [[Texas]] had their own policy when it came to Indian Reservations in America before 1850. Scholarly author George D. Harmon discusses Texas' own reservation system which "Prior to 1845, Texas had inaugurated and pursued her own Indian Policy of the U.S."<ref name="George D Harmon 1860">George D Harmon, "The United States Indian Policy in Texas, 1845–1860", ''The Mississippi Valley Historical Review'' 17, no. 3 (1930): 379.</ref> Texas was one of the States before 1850 that chose to create their own reservation system as seen in Harmon's article, "The United States Indian Policy in Texas, 1845–1860."<ref>George D Harmon, "The United States Indian Policy in Texas, 1845–1860", ''The Mississippi Valley Historical Review'' 17, no. 3 (1930)</ref> The State of "Texas had given only a few hundred acres of land in 1840, for the purpose of colonization".<ref name="George D Harmon 1860"/> However, "In March 1847, … [a] special agent [was sent] to Texas to manage the Indian affairs in the State until Congress should take some definite and final action."<ref>George D Harmon, "The United States Indian Policy in Texas, 1845–1860", ''The Mississippi Valley Historical Review'' 17, no. 3 (1930): 380.</ref> The United States of America allowed its states to make up their own treaties such as this one in Texas for the purpose of colonization.

=== Rise of Indian removal policy (1830–1868) ===
{{Main|Indian removal}}
The passage of the [[Indian Removal Act]] of 1830 marked the systematization of a U.S. federal government policy of moving Native populations away from European-populated areas, whether forcibly or voluntarily.

One example was the [[Five Civilized Tribes]], who were removed from their historical homelands in the Southeastern United States and moved to [[Indian Territory]], in a forced mass migration that came to be known as the [[Trail of Tears]]. Some of the lands these tribes were given to inhabit following the removals eventually became Indian reservations.

In 1851, the [[United States Congress]] passed the [[Indian Appropriations Act]] which authorized the creation of Indian reservations in Indian Territory (which became Oklahoma). Relations between white settlers and Natives had grown increasingly worse as the settlers encroached on territory and natural resources in the West.<ref>{{cite book|last=Bennett|first=Elmer|title=Federal Indian Law|year=2008|publisher=The Lawbook Exchange|isbn= 9781584777762|pages=201–203}}</ref>

===Forced assimilation (1868–1887)===
[[File:New-mexico-rez.jpg|thumb|Most Indian reservations, like the [[Laguna Indian Reservation, New Mexico|Laguna Indian reservation]] in New Mexico (pictured here in March 1943), are in the western United States, often in regions suitable more for [[ranching]] than farming.]]
[[File:Map Showing the Location of the Indian Reservations 1885 UTA.jpg|thumb|Paul Brodie's ''Map Showing the Location of the Indian Reservations within the Limits of the United States and Territories'', 1885]]
In 1868, President [[Ulysses S. Grant]] pursued a "Peace Policy" as an attempt to avoid violence.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.nlm.nih.gov/nativevoices/timeline/342.html|title=President Grant advances "Peace Policy" with tribes|publisher=US National Library of Medicine|access-date=November 15, 2014}}</ref> The policy included a reorganization of the Indian Service, with the goal of relocating various tribes from their ancestral homes to parcels of lands established specifically for their inhabitation. The policy called for the replacement of government officials by religious men, nominated by churches, to oversee the Indian agencies on reservations in order to teach Christianity to the Native American tribes. The [[Society of Friends|Quakers]] were especially active in this policy on reservations.<ref>[http://millercenter.org/president/grant/essays/biography/4?ModPagespeed=noscript Miller Center, University of Virginia] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140408211757/http://millercenter.org/president/grant/essays/biography/4?ModPagespeed=noscript |date=April 8, 2014 }}, Retrieved April 7, 2014.</ref>

The policy was controversial from the start. Reservations were generally established by [[Executive order (United States)|executive order]]. In many cases, white settlers objected to the size of land parcels, which were subsequently reduced. A report submitted to Congress in 1868 found widespread corruption among the federal Native American agencies and generally poor conditions among the relocated tribes.

The [[Indian Appropriations Act#1871 Act|Indian Appropriations Act of 1871]] had two significant sections. First, the Act ended United States recognition of additional Native American tribes or independent nations and prohibited additional treaties. Thus, it required the federal government no longer interact with the various tribes through treaties, but rather through statutes:

{{blockquote|That hereafter no Indian nation or tribe within the territory of the United States shall be acknowledged or recognized as an independent nation, tribe, or power with whom the United States may contract by treaty: Provided, further, that nothing herein contained shall be construed to invalidate or impair the obligation of any treaty heretofore lawfully made and ratified with any such Indian nation or tribe.|Indian Appropriations Act of 1871<ref name="App_act">{{cite web |url=http://law.onecle.com/constitution/article-2/21-indian-treaties.html |title=Indian Treaties |access-date=2009-03-31 |author=Onecle |date=November 8, 2005 }}</ref><ref name="25 usc 71">25 U.S.C. § 71. Indian Appropriation Act of March 3, 1871, 16 Stat. 544, 566</ref>}}

The 1871 Act also made it a federal crime to commit murder, manslaughter, rape, assault with intent to kill, arson, burglary, and larceny within any Territory of the United States.{{citation needed|date=October 2022}}

Many tribes ignored the relocation orders at first and were forced onto their limited land parcels. Enforcement of the policy required the [[United States Army]] to restrict the movements of various tribes. The pursuit of tribes in order to force them back onto reservations led to a number of wars with Native Americans which included some massacres. The most well-known conflict was the [[Sioux War]] on the northern [[Great Plains]], between 1876 and 1881, which included the [[Battle of Little Bighorn]]. Other famous wars in this regard included the [[Nez Perce War]] and the [[Modoc War]], which marked the last conflict officially declared a war.

By the late 1870s, the policy established by President Grant was regarded as a failure, primarily because it had resulted in some of the bloodiest wars between Native Americans and the United States. By 1877, President [[Rutherford B. Hayes]] began phasing out the policy, and by 1882 all religious organizations had relinquished their authority to the federal Indian agency.

==== Plenary Power ====
The 1871 Act was affirmed in 1886 by the U.S. Supreme Court, in ''[[United States v. Kagama]]'', which affirmed that the Congress has [[plenary power]] over all Native American tribes within its borders by rationalization that "The power of the general government over these remnants of a race once powerful ... is necessary to their protection as well as to the safety of those among whom they dwell".<ref>{{cite web |url=http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=118&invol=375 |title=''U.S. v Kagama'', 118 U.S. 375 (1886), Filed May 10, 1886 |publisher=FindLaw, a Thomson Reuters business |access-date=2012-04-29 }}</ref> The Supreme Court affirmed that the U.S. Government "has the right and authority, instead of controlling them by treaties, to govern them by acts of Congress, they being within the geographical limit of the United States. ... The Indians owe no allegiance to a State within which their reservation may be established, and the State gives them no protection."<ref>{{cite web |url=http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/118/375/ |title=''United States v. Kagama'' – 118 U.S. 375 (1886) |publisher=Justia |access-date=2012-04-29 }}</ref>

=== Allotment Era (1887–1934)===
{{Main|Dawes Act}}
In 1887, Congress undertook a significant change in reservation policy by the passage of the [[Dawes Act]], or General Allotment (Severalty) Act. The act ended the general policy of granting land parcels to tribes as-a-whole by granting small parcels of land to individual tribe members. In some cases, for example, the [[Umatilla Indian Reservation]], after the individual parcels were granted out of reservation land, the reservation area was reduced by giving the "excess land" to white settlers. The individual allotment policy continued until 1934 when it was terminated by the [[Indian Reorganization Act]].

Passed by Congress in 1887, the "Dawes Act" was named for Senator Henry L. Dawes of Massachusetts, Chairman of the Senate's Indian Affairs Committee. It came as another crucial step in attacking the tribal aspect of the Indians of the time. In essence, the act broke up the land of most all tribes into modest parcels to be distributed to Indian families, and those remaining were auctioned off to white purchasers. Indians who accepted the farmland and became "civilized" were made American citizens. But the Act itself proved disastrous for Indians, as much tribal land was lost, and cultural traditions destroyed. Whites benefited the most; for example, when the government made {{convert|2|e6acre|km2}} of Indian lands available in Oklahoma, 50,000 white settlers poured in almost instantly to claim it all (in a period of one day, April 22, 1889).

'''Evolution of relationships:'''  The evolution of the relationship between tribal governments and federal governments has been glued together through partnerships and agreements. Also running into problems of course such as finances which also led to not being able to have a stable social and political structure at the helm of these tribes or states.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://nativefinance.org/historical-sovereignty-relations/|title=Historical Tribal Sovereignty & Relations {{!}} Native American Financial Services Association|date=August 7, 2012|language=en-US|access-date=2019-10-11}}</ref>

=== The Reorganization Era ===
The [[Indian Reorganization Act]] of 1934, also known as the ''Howard-Wheeler Act'', was sometimes called the ''Indian New Deal'' and was initiated by [[John Collier (sociologist)|John Collier]]. It laid out new rights for Native Americans, reversed some of the earlier privatization of their common holdings, and encouraged [[tribal sovereignty]] and land management by tribes. The act slowed the assignment of tribal lands to individual members and reduced the assignment of "extra" holdings to nonmembers.

For the following 20 years, the U.S. government invested in infrastructure, health care, and education on the reservations. Likewise, over two million acres (8,000&nbsp;km<sup>2</sup>) of land were returned to various tribes. Within a decade of Collier's retirement the government's position began to swing in the opposite direction. The new Indian Commissioners Myers and Emmons introduced the idea of the "withdrawal program" or "[[Indian termination policy|termination]]", which sought to end the government's responsibility and involvement with Indians and to force their assimilation.

The Indians would lose their lands but were to be compensated, although many were not. Even though discontent and [[social rejection]] killed the idea before it was fully implemented, five tribes were terminated—the [[Coushatta]], [[Ute Tribe|Ute]], [[Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah|Paiute]], [[Menominee]] and [[Klamath people|Klamath]]—and 114 groups in California lost their federal recognition as tribes. Many individuals were also relocated to cities, but one-third returned to their tribal reservations in the decades that followed.

In 1934, the ''[[Indian Reorganization Act]]'', codified as Title 25, Section 476 of the U.S. Code, allowed Indian nations to select from a catalogue of constitutional documents that enumerated powers for tribes and for [[Tribal Council|tribal councils]]. Though the Act did not specifically recognize the Courts of Indian Offenses, 1934 is widely considered to be the year when tribal authority, rather than United States authority, gave the tribal courts legitimacy. [[John Collier (sociologist)|John Collier]] and [[Nathan Margold]] wrote the solicitor's opinion, "Powers of Indian Tribes" which was issued October 25, 1934, and commented on the wording of the [[Indian Reorganization Act]]. This opinion stated that sovereign powers inhered in Indian tribes except for where they were restricted by Congress. The opinion stated that "Conquest has brought the Indian tribes under the control of Congress, but except as Congress has expressly restricted or limited the internal powers of sovereignty vested in the Indian tribes such powers are still vested in the respective tribes and may be exercised by their duly constituted organs of government."<ref>{{cite web |last1=Margold |first1=Nathan R. |title=Powers of Indian Tribes |url=https://thorpe.law.ou.edu/sol_opinions/p426-450.html |website=Solicitor's Opinions |publisher=University of Oklahoma College of Law |access-date=24 February 2023}}</ref>

=== The Termination Era ===
{{further|Indian termination policy}}
In 1953, Congress enacted [[Public Law 280]], which gave some states extensive jurisdiction over the criminal and civil controversies involving Indians on Indian lands. Many, especially Indians, continue to believe the law unfair because it imposed a system of laws on the tribal nations without their approval.

In 1965, the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit]] concluded that no law had ever extended provisions of the U.S. Constitution, including the right of [[habeas corpus]], to tribal members brought before tribal courts. Still, the court concluded, "it is pure fiction to say that the Indian courts functioning in the Fort Belknap Indian community are not in part, at least, arms of the federal government. Originally they were created by federal executive and imposed upon the Indian community, and to this day the federal government still maintains a partial control over them." In the end however, the Ninth Circuit limited its decision to the particular reservation in question and stated, "it does not follow from our decision that the tribal court must comply with every constitutional restriction that is applicable to federal or state courts."

=== The Self-Determination Era ===
[[File:President Richard Nixon meeting with leaders of the Taos Pueblo American Indian Tribal Council.jpg|thumb|Richard Nixon with the leaders of [[Taos Pueblo]]. Nixon returning Blue Lake to Taos Pueblo was an early practice of [[Land Back]].]]
[[Richard Nixon]] took office as president in 1969. From 1969 to 1974, the [[Presidency of Richard Nixon|Richard Nixon administration]] [[Native American policy of the Richard Nixon administration|made important changes to United States policy towards Native Americans through legislation and executive action]]. President [[Richard Nixon]] advocated a reversal of the long-standing policy of [[Indian termination policy|"termination"]] that had characterized relations between the U.S. federal government and American Indians in favor of [[Native American self-determination|"self-determination."]] The [[Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act]] restructured indigenous governance in [[Alaska]], creating a unique structure of Native Corporations. Some of the most notable instances of American Indian activism occurred under the Nixon Administration, including the [[Occupation of Alcatraz]] and the [[Occupation of Wounded Knee]].

It was under his administration that [[Washington (state)|Washington state]] Senator [[Henry M. Jackson]] and [[United States Senate Committee on Indian Affairs|Senate Subcommittee on Indian Affairs]] aide Forrest J. Gerard were most active in their reform efforts. The work of Jackson and Gerard mirrored the demands of Indians for "self-determination." Nixon called for an end to termination and provided a direct endorsement of "self-determination."

In a 1970 address to Congress, Nixon articulated his vision of self-determination. He explained, "The time has come to break decisively with the past and to create the conditions for a new era in which the Indian future is determined by Indian acts and Indian decisions."<ref name="congress">{{cite web|title=Richard Nixon Special Message to Congress on Indian Affairs|url=http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=2573|website=The American Presidency Project|accessdate=8 April 2015}}</ref> Nixon continued, "This policy of forced termination is wrong, in my judgment, for a number of reasons. First, the premises on which it rests are wrong. Termination implies that the federal government has taken on a trusteeship responsibility for Indian communities as an act of generosity toward a disadvantaged people and that it can therefore discontinue this responsibility on a unilateral basis whenever it sees fit."<ref name="congress" /> Nixon's overt renunciation of the long-standing termination policy was the first of any President in the post-[[World War II]] era.
While many modern courts in Indian nations today have established [[full faith and credit]] with state courts, the nations still have no direct access to U.S. courts. When an Indian nation files suit against a state in U.S. court, they do so with the approval of the [[Bureau of Indian Affairs]]. In the modern legal era, the courts and Congress have, however, further refined the often competing jurisdictions of tribal nations, states and the United States in regard to Indian law.

Today the United States recognizes 574 Tribal nations, 229 of which are in [[Alaska]].<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.justice.gov/otj/native-american-policies|title=Native American Policies|date=2014-06-16|website=U.S. Department of Justice|language=en|access-date=2019-07-07}}</ref><ref name=ncai/> The [[National Congress of American Indians]] explains, "Native peoples and governments have inherent rights and a political relationship with the U.S. government that does not derive from race or ethnicity."<ref name=ncai>{{cite web |title=Tribal Nations & the United States: An Introduction |url=https://archive.ncai.org/about-tribes |website=National Congress of American Indians |access-date=6 June 2024}}</ref>

In the 1978 case of ''[[Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe]]'', the Supreme Court, in a 6–2 opinion authored by Justice [[William Rehnquist]], concluded that tribal courts do not have jurisdiction over non-Indians (the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court at that time, [[Warren Burger]], and Justice [[Thurgood Marshall]] filed a dissenting opinion). But the case left unanswered some questions, including whether tribal courts could use criminal contempt powers against non-Indians to maintain decorum in the courtroom, or whether tribal courts could subpoena non-Indians.

A 1981 case, ''[[Montana v. United States]]'', clarified that tribal nations possess inherent power over their internal affairs, and civil authority over non-members on [[fee-simple]] lands within its reservation when their "conduct threatens or has some direct effect on the political integrity, the economic security, or the health or welfare of the tribe."

Other cases of those years precluded states from interfering with tribal nations' sovereignty. Tribal sovereignty is dependent on, and subordinate to, only the federal government, not states, under ''Washington v. Confederated Tribes of Colville Indian Reservation'' (1980). Tribes are sovereign over tribal members and tribal land, under ''United States v. Mazurie'' (1975).<ref name="TRR 2021-03-18">{{Cite news |last=Miller |first=Robert J. |date=2021-03-18 |title=The Most Significant Indian Law Decision in a Century {{!}} The Regulatory Review |url=https://www.theregreview.org/2021/03/18/miller-significant-indian-law-decision-century/ |access-date=2022-12-01 |work=The Regulatory Review |publisher=University of Pennsylvania Law School |language=en-US}}</ref>

In ''[[Duro v. Reina]]'', {{ussc|495|676|1990}}, the Supreme Court held that a tribal court does not have criminal jurisdiction over a non-member Indian, but that tribes "also possess their traditional and undisputed power to exclude persons who they deem to be undesirable from tribal lands. ... Tribal law enforcement authorities have the power if necessary, to eject them. Where jurisdiction to try and punish an offender rests outside the tribe, tribal officers may exercise their power to detain and transport him to the proper authorities." In response to this decision, Congress passed the '''Duro'' Fix', which recognizes the power of tribes to exercise criminal jurisdiction within their reservations over all Indians, including non-members. The ''Duro'' Fix was upheld by the Supreme Court in ''[[United States v. Lara]]'', {{ussc|541|193|2004}}.

== Federal acknowledgment ==
Following the decisions made by the [[Indian Claims Commission]] in the 1950s, the BIA in 1978 published final rules with procedures that groups had to meet to secure federal tribal acknowledgment. There are seven criteria.  Four have proven troublesome for most groups to prove: long-standing historical community, outside identification as Indians, political authority, and descent from a historical tribe. Tribes seeking recognition must submit detailed [[petition]]s to the BIA's Office of Federal Acknowledgment.

To be formally recognized as an Indian tribe, the US Congress can legislate recognition or a tribe can meet the seven criteria outlined by the Office of Federal Acknowledgment. These seven criteria are summarized as:
# 83.7(a): "'''Indian entity identification''': The petitioner demonstrates that it has been identified as an American Indian entity on a substantially continuous basis since 1900."<ref name=summary>{{cite web |title=25 CFR Part 83 – Procedures for Federal Acknowledgment of Indian Tribes |url=https://www.bia.gov/sites/bia.gov/files/assets/as-ia/ofa/admindocs/25CFRPart83_2015_abbrev.pdf |website=Office of Federal Acknowledgment |publisher=Office of Indian Affairs, US Department of the Interior |access-date=22 January 2022 |archive-date=January 22, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220122112009/https://www.bia.gov/sites/bia.gov/files/assets/as-ia/ofa/admindocs/25CFRPart83_2015_abbrev.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref>
# 83.7(b): "'''Community''': The petitioner demonstrates that it comprises a distinct community and existed as a community from 1900 until the present."<ref name=summary/>
# 83.7(c): "'''Political influence or authority''': The petitioner demonstrates that it has maintained political influence or authority over its members as an autonomous entity from 1900 until the present."<ref name=summary/>
# 83.7(d): "'''Governing document''': The petitioner provides a copy of the group's present governing document including its membership criteria. In the absence of a written document, the petitioner must provide a statement describing in full its membership criteria and current governing procedures."<ref name=summary/>
# 83.7(e): "'''Descent''': The petitioner demonstrates that its membership consists of individuals who descend from a historical Indian tribe or from historical Indian tribes which combined and functioned as a single autonomous political entity."<ref name=summary/>
# 83.7(f): "'''Unique membership''': The petitioner demonstrates that the membership of the petitioning group is composed principally of persons who are not members of any acknowledged North American Indian tribe."<ref name=summary/>
# 83.7(g): "'''Congressional termination''': The Department demonstrates that neither the petitioner nor its members are the subject of congressional legislation that has expressly terminated or forbidden the Federal relationship."<ref name=summary/>

The federal acknowledgment process can take years, even decades; delays of 12 to 14 years have occurred. The [[Shinnecock Indian Nation]] formally petitioned for recognition in 1978 and was recognized 32 years later in 2010. At a [[Senate Committee on Indian Affairs]] hearing, witnesses testified that the process was "broken, long, expensive, burdensome, intrusive, unfair, arbitrary and capricious, less than transparent, unpredictable, and subject to undue political influence and manipulation."<ref>{{cite news |last1=Toensing |first1=Gale Courey |title=Federal Recognition Process: A Culture of Neglect |url=https://indiancountrytoday.com/archive/federal-recognition-process-a-culture-of-neglect |access-date=28 November 2021 |work=Indian Country Today |date=13 September 2018 |archive-date=November 28, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211128150622/https://indiancountrytoday.com/archive/federal-recognition-process-a-culture-of-neglect |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>[https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-111shrg56575/html/CHRG-111shrg56575.htm Fixing the Federal Acknowledgment Process] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211127025454/https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-111shrg56575/html/CHRG-111shrg56575.htm |date=November 27, 2021 }} (S. Hrg. 111-470), Hearing Before the Committee on Indian Affairs, United States Senate (Nov. 4, 2009). {{Retrieved|access-date=November 26, 2021}}</ref>

=== Recent additions ===
The number of tribes increased to 567 in May 2016 with the inclusion of the [[Pamunkey]] tribe in Virginia who received their federal recognition in July 2015.<ref name="bia.gov">[http://www.bia.gov/cs/groups/public/documents/text/idc1-030831.pdf Federal Acknowledgment of the Pamunkey Indian Tribe] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150714185005/http://www.bia.gov/cs/groups/public/documents/text/idc1-030831.pdf |date=2015-07-14 }}</ref>  The number of tribes increased to 573 with the addition of six tribes in Virginia under the [[Thomasina Jordan|Thomasina E. Jordan]] Indian Tribes of Virginia Federal Recognition Act of 2017, signed in January 2018 after the annual list had been published.<ref name="loc.gov">{{cite journal |last1=Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior. |title=Notice Indian Entities Recognized by and Eligible To Receive Services From the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs |journal=Federal Register |date=January 8, 2024 |volume=89 |issue=944 |pages=944–48 |url=https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/01/08/2024-00109/indian-entities-recognized-by-and-eligible-to-receive-services-from-the-united-states-bureau-of |access-date=February 5, 2024 |archive-date=January 15, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240115081954/https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/01/08/2024-00109/indian-entities-recognized-by-and-eligible-to-receive-services-from-the-united-states-bureau-of |url-status=live }}</ref> In July 2018 the United States' ''[[Federal Register]]'' issued an official list of 573 tribes that are ''Indian Entities Recognized and Eligible To Receive Services From the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs''.<ref name="loc.gov"/>  The [[Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians of Montana]] became the 574th tribe to gain federal recognition on December 20, 2019. The website [[USA.gov]], the federal government's official web portal, also maintains an updated list of [https://web.archive.org/web/20111127151637/http://www.usa.gov/Government/Tribal_Sites/index.shtml tribal governments]. Ancillary information present in [[Federally recognized tribes#Former versions|former versions]] of this list but no longer contained in the current listing has been included here in italic print.

==Notes==
{{notelist}}

==References==
* {{USGovernment|url=https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/FR-2020-01-30/2020-01707/summary|title=85 FR 5462 - Indian Entities Recognized by and Eligible To Receive Services From the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs}}
{{Reflist}}

'''Further reading'''
{{refbegin|colwidth=30em}}
*J. P. Allen and E. Turner, ''Changing Faces, Changing Places: Mapping Southern Californians'' (Northridge, CA: The Center for Geographical Studies, California State University, Northridge, 2002).
*George Pierre Castle and Robert L. Bee, eds., ''State and Reservation: New Perspectives on Federal Indian Policy'' (Tucson: University of Arizona Press, 1992)
*Richmond L. Clow and Imre Sutton, eds., ''Trusteeship in Change: Toward Tribal Autonomy in Resource Management'' (Boulder: University Press of Colorado, 2001).
*Wade Davies and Richmond L. Clow, ''American Indian Sovereignty and Law: An Annotated Bibliography'' (Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press, 2009).
*T. J. Ferguson and E. Richard Hart, ''A Zuni Atlas'' (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1985)
*David H. Getches, Charles F. Wilkinson, and Robert A. Williams, ''Cases and Materials on Federal Indian Law'', 4th ed. (St. Paul: West Group, 1998).
*Klaus Frantz, "Indian Reservations in the United States", Geography Research Paper 241 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999).
*James M. Goodman, ''The Navajo Atlas: Environments, Resources, People, and History of the Diné Bikeyah'' (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1982).
*J. P. Kinney, ''A Continent Lost: A Civilization Won: Indian Land Tenure in America'' (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1937)
*Francis Paul Prucha, ''Atlas of American Indian Affairs'' (Norman: University of Nebraska Press, 1990).
*C. C. Royce, comp., ''Indian Land Cessions in the United States'', 18th Annual Report, 1896–97, pt. 2 (Wash., D. C.: Bureau of American Ethnology; GPO 1899)
*Imre Sutton, "Cartographic Review of Indian Land Tenure and Territoriality: A Schematic Approach", ''American Indian Culture and Research Journal'', 26:2 (2002): 63–113.
*Imre Sutton, ''Indian Land Tenure: Bibliographical Essays and a Guide to the Literature'' (NY: Clearwater Publ. 1975).
*Imre Sutton, ed., "The Political Geography of Indian Country", ''American Indian Culture and Resource Journal'', vol. 15, no. 2 (1991):1–169.
*Imre Sutton, "Sovereign States and the Changing Definition of the Indian Reservation", ''Geographical Review'', vol. 66, no. 3 (1976): 281–95.
*Veronica E. Velarde Tiller, ed., ''Tiller's Guide to Indian Country: Economic Profiles of American Indian Reservations'' (Albuquerque: BowArrow Pub., 1996/2005)
*[[David J. Wishart]] and Oliver Froehling, "Land Ownership, Population and Jurisdiction: the Case of the 'Devils Lake Sioux Tribe v. North Dakota Public Service Commission'", ''American Indian Culture and Research Journal'', 20(2): 33–58 (1996).
*Laura Woodward-Ney, ''Mapping Identity: The Coeur d'Alene Indian Reservation, 1803–1902'' (Boulder: University Press of Colorado, 2004)
{{refend}}

== See also ==
*[[Indian country]]
*[[Tribal sovereignty in the United States]]
*[[Federal Indian Policy]]
*[[Domestic dependent nations]]
*[[Suzerainty]]
*[[Indian Claims Commission]]
*[[Indian colony]]
*[[Native Hawaiians]]
*[[Hawaiian home land]]
*[[Indian country]]
*[[List of historical Indian reservations in the United States]]
*[[List of Indian reservations in the United States]]
*[[List of federally recognized tribes by state]]
*[[List of federally recognized tribes in the contiguous United States]]
*[[List of Alaska Native tribal entities]]
*[[List of Indian reservations in the United States]]
*[[Native American reservation politics]]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Federally Recognized Tribe}}
[[Category:Native American people]]
[[Category:Federally recognized tribes in the United States|*]]
[[Category:Contiguous United States|*]]
[[Category:First-level administrative divisions by country|Federally recognized tribe, United States]]
[[Category:Administrative divisions in North America|United States 1]]
[[Category:Political divisions of the United States|Federally recognized tribe]]
[[Category:Types of administrative division|Federally recognized tribe, United States]]

==External links==
{{Commons category|Federally recognized tribes in the United States}}
* [https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1034/ML103430075.pdf BIA full-size Indian reservations in the continental United States] – National Park Service
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20020805011052/http://www.census.gov/geo/www/tallies/tallyair.html U.S. Census tallies for Indian reservations]
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20030316202755/http://www.census.gov/geo/www/GARM/Ch5GARM.pdf Chapter 5: American Indian and Alaska Native Areas], U.S. Census Bureau, Geographic Areas Reference manual (PDF)
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20080910144940/http://www.doi.gov/bia/TLD-Final.pdf Tribal Leaders Directory]
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20041217202126/http://www.theorator.com/bills108/s523.html Native American Technical Corrections Act of 2003]
* [http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0423/p08s01-comv.html Gambling on the reservation] April 2004 ''[[Christian Science Monitor]]'' article with links to other Monitor articles on the topic
*[http://www.democracynow.org/2010/9/30/henry_red_cloud_of_oglala_lakota Henry Red Cloud of Oglala Lakota Tribe on the Recession's Toll on Reservations]—video report by ''[[Democracy Now!]]''
*[https://www.justice.gov/tribal Tribal Justice & Safety. at the U.S. Department of Justice]
*[https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/209839.pdf "Public Law 280 and Law Enforcement in Indian Country – Research Priorities"]

{{Aboriginal title in the United States}}
{{Native American topics}}
{{United States political divisions}}
{{USCensus Geography}}
{{Indigenous rights footer}}

{{Authority control}}

[[Category:American Indian reservations| ]]
[[Category:Native American topics]]
[[Category:Aboriginal title in the United States]]
[[Category:Native American culture]]
[[Category:History of racial segregation in the United States]]
[[Category:United States Bureau of Indian Affairs]]

[[th:เขตสงวนอินเดียน]]