2 versions

CosmeticWhat changed in REPORTED IN HOUSEcompared with INTRODUCED IN HOUSE (Apr 10, 2025)

Technical corrections only. The changes between v1 and v2 reflect the bill's progression through the legislative process, adding report and calendar numbers and the date it was committed and ordered to be printed. There are no substantive changes to the bill's text or policy.

H.R. 2827119th CongressIntroduced Apr 10, 2025

To provide for the equitable settlement of certain Indian land disputes regarding land in Illinois, and for other purposes.

Reported To HouseNative AmericansMajor

View bill text

Sponsor: Rep. Cole, Tom [R-OK-4]
Committees: Natural Resources Committee (primary)
Last action: Aug 20, 2026

Bottom line

H.R. 2827 offers the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma a narrow, time-limited opportunity to pursue one specific historical land claim in exchange for relinquishing all other present and future claims to land in Illinois.

What it actually does

This bill grants the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma a one-year window to file a specific land claim in the United States Court of Federal Claims, related to the 1805 Treaty of Grouseland, explicitly waiving typical statutes of limitations and delay-based defenses. Crucially, it simultaneously extinguishes all other current and future land claims by the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma, or its members, descendants, or predecessors, to any land in the State of Illinois, with the sole exception of the claim filed under this specific grant of jurisdiction.

Proponents argue

Proponents would argue that this bill provides a fair and equitable mechanism for resolving a long-standing historical grievance for the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma, offering a specific judicial pathway for a claim under the Treaty of Grouseland while bringing finality and certainty to land titles in Illinois by extinguishing all other potential claims. They would emphasize that it offers a structured legal process to address historical injustices without opening the door to an endless stream of litigation.

Opponents contend

Opponents might argue that while it appears to offer a remedy, the bill's extinguishment clause is overly broad and potentially coercive, forcing the Tribe to choose between one specific claim and all other potential claims, some of which might not yet be fully understood or developed. They could also raise concerns about the precedent of extinguishing future claims, which could be seen as undermining tribal sovereignty and future rights.

The bill is very short and straightforward, allowing for a quick and easy understanding of its core provisions.

Section 1(a)(1)

Jurisdiction for Miami Tribe of Oklahoma Land Claim

prominently featuredstraightforward

This provision grants the U.S. Court of Federal Claims the authority to hear a specific land claim brought by the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma. This claim must be based on the 1805 Treaty of Grouseland. Importantly, the court is instructed to consider this claim without applying standard legal time limits (statutes of limitations) or defenses based on delays in bringing the claim.

GroupImpactMechanismScale

GroupMiami Tribe of OklahomaImpactEmpowered to pursue a specific historical land claim in federal court.MechanismWaiver of statute of limitations and delay-based defenses.ScaleDirectly impacts the Tribe's ability to seek redress for a specific historical grievance.

GroupUnited States Court of Federal ClaimsImpactGranted specific, time-limited jurisdiction over a particular type of claim.MechanismLegislative directive.ScaleAdds a specific case to its docket, with unique procedural rules.

Supporters argue

Supporters argue this provision offers a crucial, albeit limited, pathway for the Miami Tribe to seek justice for a historical land dispute, acknowledging the unique circumstances of tribal claims that often predate modern legal frameworks and have faced systemic barriers.

Critics contend

Critics might argue that creating special jurisdictional rules for one specific claim could set a problematic precedent, potentially leading to a cascade of similar legislative interventions for other historical claims, or that it could be seen as an overreach by Congress into judicial processes.

Tradeoffs

The tension lies between providing a specific remedy for a historical injustice and maintaining the general principles of legal finality and consistent application of statutes of limitations.

Section 1(a)(2)

Jurisdiction Expiration

mentioned in summarystraightforward

This subsection sets a strict deadline for the special jurisdiction granted to the Court of Federal Claims. If the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma does not file its specific land claim within one year of the bill becoming law, the court's authority to hear that claim will expire.

Section 1(b)

Extinguishment of Other Claims

prominently featuredmoderately complex

This critical provision states that, with the single exception of the claim filed under Section 1(a)(1), all other land claims by the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma (or any individual associated with the Tribe, past or present) to any land in the State of Illinois are permanently ended. This includes any existing claims and any claims that might arise in the future.

About this analysis. AI-Generated from the official bill text and available committee reports. Gaps in available data are noted explicitly. Verify important details with the official Congress.gov record.