Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 176.
The bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to complete steps within 365 days so roughly 40 acres at Wounded Knee on the Pine Ridge Reservation are held in "restricted fee" status by the Oglala Sioux and Cheyenne River Sioux Tribes. It defines restricted fee (tribal ownership, tribal civil and criminal jurisdiction, no state/local taxation, transfer only with tribal and congressional consent), preserves existing easements and utility agreements, makes the land subject to federal Indian country law, and expressly prohibits gaming on the land per a referenced October 21, 2022 covenant.
Progressives emphasize tribal sovereignty and memorial protection
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly focused substantive change that clearly defines the parcel and the legal status sought, integrates appropriately with existing Indian law, and assigns a responsible official and deadline for implementation.
The bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to complete steps within 365 days so roughly 40 acres at Wounded Knee on the Pine Ridge Reservation are held in "restricted fee" status by the Oglala Sioux and Cheyenne River Sioux Tribes.
It defines restricted fee (tribal ownership, tribal civil and criminal jurisdiction, no state/local taxation, transfer only with tribal and congressional consent), preserves existing easements and utility agreements, makes the land subject to federal Indian country law, and expressly prohibits gaming on the land per a referenced October 21, 2022 covenant.
Very narrow, administratively focused, low-cost, and contains compromise elements; localized objections or missing documentation could slow progress.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly focused substantive change that clearly defines the parcel and the legal status sought, integrates appropriately with existing Indian law, and assigns a responsible official and deadline for implementation. It provides concrete restrictions and preserves existing encumbrances.
Progressives emphasize tribal sovereignty and memorial protection
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize tribal sovereignty and memorial protection
Likely broadly supportive: sees this as restoring tribal control over a sacred historic site and reinforcing tribal sovereignty.
Would emphasize cultural preservation, memorialization, and tribal self-determination while seeking guarantees for site protection and survivor/descendant involvement.
Generally favorable but pragmatic: values honoring the historic site and clarifying title, while seeking clarity on costs, existing encumbrances, and operational responsibilities.
Views the gaming prohibition as useful to avoid disputes.
Mixed to somewhat skeptical: may support memorial protection and the gaming ban, but concerned about expanding tribal jurisdiction, reduced state/local tax base, and limiting federal oversight.
Worries about precedent and impacts on non-tribal rights.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Very narrow, administratively focused, low-cost, and contains compromise elements; localized objections or missing documentation could slow progress.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize tribal sovereignty and memorial protection
Very narrow, administratively focused, low-cost, and contains compromise elements; localized objections or missing documentation could slow…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly focused substantive change that clearly defines the parcel and the legal status sought, integrates appropriately with existing Indian law, and assigns a…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.