Talk:State-recognized tribes in the United States

Lipan Apache Tribe of Texas

Texas HR 812 and SR 438 (2009) are congratulatory resolutions. As are the concurrent resolutions in 2019, HCR 171 and SCR 61. Despite using the language "recognition" and "recognize," they do not provide any further legal mechanisms or grant any privileges. They are non-binding. Similar congratulatory resolutions use the term "recognize," such as:

• HR 1339: WHEREAS, the House of Representatives of the State of Texas is pleased to recognize Martha K. Spinks...
• SR 762: WHEREAS, the Senate of the State of Texas is pleased to recognize the Texas Department of Public Safety..., etc.

In January 2021, Senator Juan Hinojosa introduced SB 274 which very explicitly sought to make the Lipan Apache Tribe of Texas a state-recognized tribe. The proposed bill's text read: "The tribe is recognized as eligible for all programs, services, authorizations, including marketing and sales authorizations, and other benefits provided to state-recognized Native American Indian Tribes by the United States, the state, or any other state because of the tribe members' status as Native Americans Indians" (SB 74) That would have been a legally binding bill; however, it died in committee in 2021. No similar bills have been introduced since .

In the McAllen Grace Brethren Church v. Jewell, Judge Jones said, "Soto is without dispute an Indian and a member and regular participant in the Lipan Apache Tribe, which, although not federally recognized, has long historical roots in Texas," (No. 13-40326, which no one would dispute; however, nowhere in the ruling is there any mention of the Lipan Apache being a state-recognized tribe. Yuchitown (talk) 05:28, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Yuchitown

Thanks for this useful information. Doug Weller talk 15:46, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Clearly the information belongs in the article and the editor that keeps removing it has a personal bias against its inclusion to the point they are willing to edit war over its inclusion. --ARoseWolf 18:43, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

As we know, the history of acknowledgement for an American Indian tribe can be complicated, especially when they are not a federally recognized tribe. In some states, the state government has set a specific process for the government to acknowledge and then interact with one of their tribes. However, there are states which have not set up such a process. This does not mean that an American Indian tribe in their state does not exist, but rather that the state does not specify how they can recognize a tribe. It is left up to tribes to work with their state’s existing formal legal systems. Two organizations are often used in this wiki page to verify whether an American Indian tribe has met the general standard of being considered a "state-recognized" tribe: the directory list of the National Congress of American Indian (NCAI) and the list of state-recognized tribes by the National Conference of State Legislators (NCSL). On the latter, the Lipan Apache Tribe of Texas used to be on this NCSL list, as were many others, but several years ago, NCSL communicated that they were trimming the list to just tribes that had been acknowledged by legislative law. However, NCSL has now taken down the page that included the state-recognized tribe list; their official representation explained that the page was not intended to serve in any official capacity, nor does NCSL have the authority to make such determinations. The listing webpage will be removed until they are able to research further. NCAI—the oldest, largest, and most representative American Indian and Alaska Native organization serving the broad interest of tribal governments and communities—does have a process by which they review applications for tribal membership, a process that includes a review of the application, the tribe's type of recognition claim, and their supporting documentation by the organization’s legal team. The Lipan Apache Tribe is on this list as a state-recognized tribe under court of claims. Lwalkingwoman (talk) 19:15, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Neutral sources covering state-recognized and unrecognized tribes are extremely difficult to come by, and the National Conference of State Legislatures is neutral. Regarding NCSL communicated that they were trimming the list to just tribes that had been acknowledged by legislative law, as suggesting recognition only by state legislatures, that's not true. They list the Nipmuc Nation, who were recognized by Massachusetts due to Governor Dukakis's executive order. Yuchitown (talk) 04:21, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Yuchitown

It does seem that NCSL was at one point evaluating who would be represented in their list by including and not including then including more. What was true in one moment may not have been true later. But now, they have just taken the list down and they stated that the list was never intended in any official capacity. So does the page still continue to use a reference to a page that no longer exists and the reason it does not exist is because the organization no longer supports it? In a similar question but with NCAI, would you say that they are reliable source for the list? If not, should it be removed from this wiki page? Lwalkingwoman (talk) 06:25, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

An aside, my relatives helped found NCAI. I archived the NCSL URL that was used as a citation. What constitutes acceptable citations is outlined at Wikipedia:Citing sources. They should be reliable, secondary published sources, and ideally from a neutral point of view, which is why NCLS has been so valuable; they aren't advocating for or against any groups. The secondary is important since the overwhelming material available on the web about state-recognized groups comes directly from those groups. Yuchitown (talk) 16:55, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Yuchitown

First, I thank you to your relatives for their service in helping to found NCAI. On the archived NCSL url, it is true that Wikipedia: Citing sources current text supports doing this. But since in this case, the reference to the NCSL page has been taken down by the organization, and thus it is a source that they do not want to share anymore. Perhaps someday they will put up a revised version, but maybe not. I will follow up with Martha Saenz of NCSL on occasion to hear updates. So, given that the source is no longer supported by the maker, should it still be used and wouldn't it be more prudent to replace it with a different source that is currently available? 2603:8081:3005:8500:DC71:EB43:5205:7E93 (talk) 04:12, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

No one is stopping you from adding sources; the problem is your deletion of cited material and pushing a POV that isn't supported by cited material. Yes, archived sourced can be used. Yuchitown (talk) 04:30, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Yuchitown

Respectfully, can you identify the material I posted that was not supported by cited material? 2603:8081:3005:8500:D485:6E86:D6A1:65E1 (talk) 17:15, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Logged out again. I posted the above question. Lwalkingwoman (talk) 17:27, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Diff. Yuchitown (talk) 17:38, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Yuchitown

Sorry, I was logged out without noticing when I entered the above response on citing material. I agreed with you that archived an archived source could be use, but the question was should it if it is no longer intended to be shared as an accurate source by the maker? Lwalkingwoman (talk) 05:31, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

That doesn't explain why you are removing other reliably sourced information from the article. Can you prove that Texas has a mechanism for recognizing Tribal entities within the state? Did Texas, in fact, pass a bill into law recognizing this Tribe? I may agree with the inclusion of their membership in the NCAI in the article but I also believe that what Yuchitown provided is accurate and reliably sourced. On the article State-recognized tribes in the United States it very clearly states State-recognized tribes in the United States are organizations that identify as Native American tribes or heritage groups that do not meet the criteria for federally recognized Indian tribes but have been recognized by a process established under assorted state government laws for varying purposes. Note my added emphasis on the bolded text. No where in this article does it state that an organization, not debating their legitimacy, outside that of the state established process can defer state recognized status on a Tribe. Can you provide evidence that the state of Texas has, by process, declared this Tribe a state recognized entity? --ARoseWolf 19:56, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

By definition, only the states can deem a tribe state-recognized. Texas has not done so. Organizations frequently try to reframe congratulatory resolutions as "state-recognition"; however, these resolutions are honorific and nonbinding (another example: SN2, The Senate of the State of Texas is pleased to recognize Israel Pacheco, Jr., who is retiring after 28 years and nine months of loyal service with the Texas Department of Public Safety.... Texas SB 274 was proposed in 2021 to legally, formally make the Lipan Apache Tribe of Texas a state-recognized tribe; however, it did not pass, and no similar bills have been proposed since. Yuchitown (talk) 04:15, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Yuchitow

On the Lipan Apache Tribe and bill SB 274, I see the confusion. It is true that the bill did not pass, but it also did not make it past the point where there was a debate or discussion. It simply died in the committee without being brought to the table before the end of the year's legislative session, so it was not discussed, debated, amended, or voted on. But I do have a question or two for discussion. I don't think there is a legal definition in the country that covers what it means to be recognized by a state. Some states do develop a process, but others do not. We can agree that when states do not, it does not mean that it will always be the case. Texas also had this odd history where there used to be and State Indian Commission that through some apparent legislative flux was closed in 1989. So my first question is, can someone share where the definition of a state recognized tribe is that is applied to all states even those without a process and the legal source? My second question is, is it possible for a tribe in a state that does not have a process to have government to government interactions with a tribe without passing a bill into law. Lwalkingwoman (talk) 06:15, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I am just one of many that may answer your questions so don't necessarily take my thoughts as the only perspective one can have. To answer your first question, there may not be a definition applied to all states but there is a definition applied to all contents of Wikipedia. As Wikipedia is not a state or government controlled entity it can make up its own rules for what content is allowed on its platform. That is largely done by consensus through discussions like this one. In regards to state-recognized Tribes, it has already defined that and the definition has been given (See my comment above). As to the second question, if Texas developed a mechanism to recognize Tribes within its state then this discussion most likely would change in favor of following the results of that process of law for that state in accordance with the definition provided above. --ARoseWolf 16:31, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

The article text about SB 274 clearly states that it "died in committee," so there is no confusion about that. Regarding definitions of state-recognized tribes, the US Department of Health and Human Services writes that "State recognized tribes are Indian tribes and heritage groups that are recognized by individual states for their various internal state government purposes" (USDHHS ANA). It would be a purely internal state issue, except that the federal Indian Arts and Crafts Act includes state-recognized tribes within its scope. The State of Texas is the only authority for state-recognized tribes within Texas. Yuchitown (talk) 16:56, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Yuchitown

It is true that the text says died in committee without explaining what that means. So, I will talk to my district's state senator who is in this particular Texas Senate State Affairs Committee to see if she clarify in writing what happened so as you can better understand what it meant by "died in committee." On the Indian Arts and Crafts Act, the law does not really define a state recognized tribe, rather is defines what an Indian is for the purpose of that law which regulates the use of Native arts and crafts. As you know, there are other agencies that define what an Indian in different ways some of which are open to members of all State Recognized Tribes, or only some State Recognized Tribes, or no State Recognized tribes. So there is no single definition of Indian with different federal and states determining how they will define Indian for the purpose of their laws and/or services of certain agencies. NCSL explains that there are only 11 states have enacted a state recognition scheme but that some states without a formal process for recognition acknowledge the historical and cultural contribution of tribes, some with concurrent resolutions. In their 2008 survey of state-recognized tribes and state recognition processes, Koenig & Stein addresses the various ways that States handle recognition of tribes in their states by categorizing the widely varying approaches to recognition into four groups: (1) State law, (2) administrative, (3) legislative, and (4) executive. Through the legislative process, the state can act only through its legislature, not even requiring the signature of the Governor or passage of a state statue. This can be done through a joint or concurrent resolution by one or both house of the state legislature, even if this type of recognition does not carry the force of law. With the legislative resolutions in Texas, the tribes are guided by the advice of their sponsoring Senator(s) and/or Representative(s). 2603:8081:3005:8500:DC71:EB43:5205:7E93 (talk) 03:49, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

You've logged out of your account and are using an IP address.

We all know what "died in committee" means; the bill did not pass.

No one is saying IACA defines state-recognized tribes; it's just a rare federal law that includes state-recognized tribes.

We are not defining "Indian" here.

Honorary resolutions are not state-recognition; if they were, then the Lipan Apache Band of Texas (and many, many other heritage groups) would have be recognized. Yuchitown (talk) 04:26, 24 November 2022 (UTC)Yuchitown

Some resolutions can be a recognition by the legislature of one of their state's tribes as NCSL, Koenig & Stein, and others explain. According to the representatives and senators the Lipan Apache Tribe has worked with, the wording in a resolution is important. That I recall, only one or two other tribal communities in the state have been able to do this. Lwalkingwoman (talk) 05:52, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

No, it was me and I was cooking when I came back not noticing that I was logged out. It happens, an oversite. I posted also another response above. I will identify it as me too. Lwalkingwoman (talk) 05:26, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Back to the original discussion, the difference between SB 274 and all the various concurrent resolutions and simple resolutions is that bills become or amend laws, while "Resolutions are statements of opinions and, unlike bills, do not have the force of law" ("Bills and Resolutions," University of Houston). Yuchitown (talk) 14:28, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Yuchitown

Unreliable source

https://www.500nations.com/tribes/Tribes_States.asp seems to be an unreliable source. For starters, it lists many more tribes as recognised by Massachusetts than the National Conference of State Legislatures (https://web.archive.org/web/20210602114015/https://www.ncsl.org/legislators-staff/legislators/quad-caucus/list-of-federal-and-state-recognized-tribes.aspx#ma) does, and I'm inclined to trust the NCSL a lot more. Eldomtom2 (talk) 19:50, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Koenig and Stein

I was wondering who Koenig and Stein were and why their recommendations might matter or not.

Koenig and Stein have recommended the processes of North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia, all established by-laws passed by the state legislatures, as models worthy of other states to use as the basis for legislation related to recognition of Native American tribes. Statutes that clearly identify criteria for recognition or that explicitly recognize certain tribes remove ambiguity from their status.

Alexa Koenig is a professor from UC–Berkeley, but turns out that Jonathan Stein falsely claimed to be a member of the unrecognized but historic Gabrielino-Togva Tribe, and they sued him for "identity theft and defrauding the Tribe out of more than $20,000,000"(CaseText). Not only is he not a reliable source apparently he's highly controversial. Would it be acceptable to remove his recommendations from the article? The final statement of that paragraph is highly debatable opinion. Yuchitown (talk) 23:12, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown

Michigan

Wow! This was news to me since I've heard about the state historic tribes of Michigan forever. The link I provided back in June is already dead. Michigan's Health & Human Services' Native American Children's Services mentions but does not name the state historic tribes. The Michigan Dept. of Lifelong Education mentions state historic tribes but only to say they aren't eligible for tuition waivers. The Michigan Department of Civil Rights provides contacts for the state historic tribes but that document is from 2016. The current State of Michigan Tribal Government page and the two Executive Directives from 2012 and 2019 don't mention state historic tribes. Yuchitown (talk) 18:48, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Washington

The Chinook Indian Nation isn't a state-recognized tribe; they are a formerly federally recognized tribe whose federal recognition was rescinded, as reflected in their excellent article. (Removed listing from this article for reference) While they are members of NCAI, only the State of Washington has the authority to confer state-recognition, and no sources from the State of Washington reflect that. The State of Washington doesn't even include them in its Directory of Indian Organizations. Yuchitown (talk) 17:09, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Ohio

There's a paragraph about the United Remnant Band of the Shawnee Nation under Ohio, basically explaining why they aren't a state-recognized tribe. Seems like this should just be deleted perWP:UNDUE and since it generates confusion. Yuchitown (talk) 17:08, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Texas: State recognition section: RS and WEIGHT concerns

I would like to propose a revision to the Texas subsection to better align with reliable sourcing and due weight principles.

The current framing relies significantly on Reed's 2025 Texas Bar Journal opinion piece as the primary authority for the assertion that "Texas currently lacks a codified administrative recognition procedure." While Reed's analysis is useful historical context, subsequent legislative and executive action has superseded this characterization.

As documented in the earlier discussion, two primary government sources now directly address state‑recognized tribal status in Texas:

• The State of Texas 2022–2025 STOP Violence Against Women Act Implementation Plan (Office of the Governor, Public Safety Office, 2 March 2022) explicitly identifies the Texas Band of Yaqui Indians and Lipan Apache Band of Texas as "state recognized" tribes in a separate category from the state's three federally recognized tribes.
• The U.S. Department of the Interior STOP Act Consultation Summary (Bureau of Indian Affairs, 14 January 2025) similarly lists the Texas Band of Yaqui Indians as a "state‑recognized" tribal entity in consultation documentation.
• The Studies Weekly Texas History curriculum (Texas Tech University Research, 2017) describes both Lipan Apache and Texas Band of Yaqui Indians as state‑recognized tribes.

These sources are more recent, more directly on‑point, and originate from governmental and educational institutions with direct expertise in the subject matter. Per WP:WEIGHT, they should receive proportionally greater emphasis than an opinion‑based legal journal article in framing the current status of tribal recognition in Texas.

The proposed revision does not argue that Reed is unreliable; rather, it appropriately contextualizes his observations as historical commentary while allowing the more recent primary sources to establish the current state of affairs.

Would this approach be acceptable to other editors? Obzidiann (talk) 05:50, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

I will second Yuchi to say the Texas Bar Journal article is more recent. It appears to be a professional journal rather than a scholarly one, however, as I don't see any peer review process detailed on the website (if I'm missing it, please share the link). That means it's useful but is indeed opinion. I think we should find some non-opinion sources for that statement in particular, but I've left it for now.

I have condensed the current text so it is less repetitive (see diff here), and is hopefully more reflective of what the sources we use say. I still think we should find better sources overall, and we should avoid WP:OR by trying indirect references together.

It may also be necessary to talk more about the differences between de facto recognition (e.g., in terms of states consulting with groups as if they were already state-recognised) and de jure recognition (formal legal recognition) in the article, not least so that there's common language we can use across sections. Lewisguile (talk) 10:28, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

I think we have to be careful not to understate what the State of Texas itself has already done and written. Whatever one’s view of “formal” recognition, Texas program documents and de jure evidence such as official certificates explicitly call the Texas Band of Yaqui Indians a “state recognized tribe” or “Native American tribe,” and treat it as a tribal government in practice. The 2022–2025 STOP VAWA implementation plan states that “the two state recognized tribes are the Lipan Apache in south Texas, and the Yaqui in the panhandle of Texas” and that “the Texas Band of Yaqui Indians became a state recognized tribe in 2015,” and the BIA’s STOP Act consultation summary refers to “the Texas Band of Yaqui Indians, also state‑recognized” when listing state‑recognized tribal governments.

In addition, the 2015 Texas Senate resolution certificate reproducing SR 989 is available on Wikimedia Commons and provides de jure evidence that the Senate formally “recogniz[ed]” the Texas Band of Yaqui Indians as a Native American tribe in its official proceedings. Per WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV, these explicit state and federal descriptions of Texas Band of Yaqui Indians as a state‑recognized Native American tribe need to be reflected in the article alongside any legal commentary, rather than being treated as incidental. SevenGenerationsResearch (talk) 05:24, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

I know Seven Generations has been blocked as a sock, but one thing I did find while looking for the Texas Bar Journal's peer review process was this disclaimer:

The State Bar of Texas presents the information on this web site as a service to our members and other Internet users. While the information on this site is about legal issues, it is not legal advice. Moreover, due to the rapidly changing nature of the law and our reliance on information provided by outside sources, we make no warranty or guarantee concerning the accuracy or reliability of the content at this site or at other sites to which we link.

This is visible on the article's own web page here: https://www.texasbar.com/AM/Template.cfm?Section=articles&ContentID=69552&Template=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm It also references Wikipedia among the sources, which may make this a circular source anyway. I think we probably want a better source here. Lewisguile (talk) 08:25, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm waiting for everyone to hash whatever they want before touching this again (and disagree with the above proposal). I had listed the proposed bills (including the current one) for actual state-recognition in the last version I touched so they are easily read and links can quickly be followed. The Texas Bar Journal is the official publication of the State Bar of Texas, and the piece was written in November 2025 so is more recent than any of the proposed bills for formal state-recognition.

"Resolutions are statements of opinions and, unlike bills, do not have the force of law" (University of Houston). This has been an ongoing source of confusion in state-recognition discussion for years. TX SR989 (2015–16) honoring the Texas Band of Yaqui Indians is clearly classified as "Resolutions--Congratulatory & Honorary" on Legiscan.

There's clearly interest in formal state-recognition of a couple of tribes in Texas, and it will be interesting to see where TX HB4732 lands: if it passes or dies in committee. Yuchitown (talk) 02:37, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Under our content policies we should be careful not to turn one author’s interpretation into Wikipedia’s own conclusion.

Per WP:RS and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, the Texas Bar Journal article is a reliable source for what its author argues, but it is not a peer‑reviewed legal authority or a binding determination by the State of Texas. It therefore needs to be clearly attributed (e.g. “Attorney J. Eric Reed argues that…”) and balanced against official documents from the Governor’s Office, BIA, and state‑approved curriculum that describe the Texas Band of Yaqui Indians as a state‑recognized tribe or tribal government.

Similarly, per WP:OR and WP:SYN, we cannot combine the University of Houston explainer on bills vs. resolutions with the author’s article and LegiScan’s labeling to reach a new, stronger conclusion of our own about what “counts” as state recognition in Texas. Those sources can be quoted and contrasted in the article, but editors should avoid using them to promote a single preferred definition in Wikipedia’s voice.

Given that multiple high‑quality sources clearly conflict, WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT require that we present the differing views side‑by‑side with proper attribution, not privilege one lawyer’s recent opinion or one database’s classification over state and federal program documents. SevenGenerationsResearch (talk) 04:52, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

References

Texas conversation continued, sans AI

I hope it's okay, Lewisguile, that I'm copying your last comment here, so people don't have to wade through a sea of AI to read it. Yuchitown (talk) 04:20, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

I know Seven Generations has been blocked as a sock, but one thing I did find while looking for the Texas Bar Journal's peer review process was this disclaimer:

The State Bar of Texas presents the information on this web site as a service to our members and other Internet users. While the information on this site is about legal issues, it is not legal advice. Moreover, due to the rapidly changing nature of the law and our reliance on information provided by outside sources, we make no warranty or guarantee concerning the accuracy or reliability of the content at this site or at other sites to which we link.

This is visible on the article's own web page here: https://www.texasbar.com/AM/Template.cfm?Section=articles&ContentID=69552&Template=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm It also references Wikipedia among the sources, which may make this a circular source anyway. I think we probably want a better source here. Lewisguile (talk) 08:25, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

The Texas Bar Journal's disclaimer is the same boilerplate disclaimer you'll see from any attorney or law firm when not retained for legal advice. We're not looking for any legal advice here. Reed's article "The Status of Texas Indigenous Groups" is cited which puts it far ahead of most the links on the page. Footnote 1 cites the Federal Register's "Indian Entities Recognized...", and the Wikipedia article mentioned is after "see also," which means it isn't a citation but a place to find more information, i.e. the "interactive link[s] to each separate tribe." The journal is also published monthly, and no responses have been made in recent issues, which might be expected if the article had any errors.

Then addressing, de facto recognition (e.g., in terms of states consulting with groups as if they were already state-recognised) and de jure recognition (formal legal recognition), only de jure recognition would be relevant to this article. States issue congratulatory resolutions to individuals, sport teams, clubs, you name it. Here are some recent examples from Texas. States consult with all sorts of groups, for instance, the California Native American Heritage Commission maintains a Digital Atlas of California Native Americans that lists dozens if not hundreds of unrecognized organizations, many of which the state consults with, but California has no state-recognized tribes.

Likewise, many of the organizations who meet with the Massachusetts Commission on Indian Affairs have described themselves as being state-recognized; however, that commission does not have the legal authority to create state-recognized tribes. When the Herring Pond Wampanoag Tribe were state-recognized on November 19, 2024, it clarified a lot – that they had not previously been state-recognized and now the only two tribes in Massachusetts who are state-recognized but not federally recognized are Herring Pond and the Hassanamisco Nipmuc Tribe.

Since articles about state-recognized tribes are so contenious on Wikipedia (thanks in no small part to the currently banned sock), using direct quotes from sources prevents misinterpretation/misrepresentation, naming the authors of the sources (so information isn't placed in wikivoice), when helpful dating the sources, and listing conflicting sources all help to provide a fact-based summary of the subject. Yuchitown (talk) 04:20, 16 February 2026 (UTC)