110 Iowa L. Rev. Online 135 (2025)

DOWNLOAD PDF
 

Abstract

In the summer of 2022, I was working on an article on the impact of various definitions of “Indian” on public health surveillance, and I needed that list. I, begrudgingly, resolved to generate it myself. Numerous practitioners, scholars, advocates, and courts have described and critiqued the various definitions of Indian status under the law. Here, I humbly offer the results of my research to support the research, writing, and advocacy of others interested in this topic. In December 2022, I conducted searches on WestlawNext for definitions of “Indian” under federal statutes and regulations. I reviewed several thousand provisions and, while I tended toward overinclusion, I inevitably excluded some relevant provisions. I found over eighty unique definitions of “Indian” under the statutory code, mostly defining Indian status by membership in a federally recognized Tribe. (Appendix 1). The federal statutory and regulatory code definitions of “Alaska Native,” “Urban Indian,” and “Native American” are also provided in Appendices 2–4, respectively. My thoughts on the impact of these and other definitions can be found in my article, Indigeneity, Data Genocide, and Public Health, in the Iowa Law Review.

Note on Appendices: Although similar in meaning, please note that there might be some technical differences between the language from the listed provisions and that of the definitions presented in the tables below. For example, many provisions define “Indian” as someone who is a member of a federally recognized Tribe: “‘Indian’ means a person who is a member of an Indian tribe.” But provisions might vary by using the phrase “an individual” instead of “a person.” Provisions differing from exact language provided are marked with an asterisk (*). Additionally, some provisions incorporate the listed definition by reference. Provisions incorporating the language provided by reference are marked with two asterisks (**).