Indian Reorganization Act

The Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) of 18 June 1934, also known as the Wheeler–Howard Act, was a landmark piece of United States federal legislation that redefined the relationship between the federal government and American Indian nations. Considered the centrepiece of the “Indian New Deal”, it aimed to reverse decades of assimilationist policy and restore a measure of tribal self-government, communal landholding and economic stability. Enacted during a period of severe economic hardship, the IRA marked the most significant federal effort to restructure Native governance since the end of the allotment era.
The legislation emerged at a time when federal spending on Native communities had sharply declined: from an annual average of 38 million dollars in the late 1920s to 23 million dollars by 1933, before returning to around 38 million dollars by 1940. Against this backdrop, the IRA sought to create a sustainable foundation for reservation economies and restore tribal authority in key areas of governance, land management and cultural preservation.

Background to the Act

The IRA was strongly shaped by the intellectual and political work of John Collier, a sociologist and long-time advocate for Native rights. Appointed Commissioner of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) in 1933 under President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Collier opposed the assimilationist thrust of earlier federal policy. In particular, he criticised the legacy of the Dawes Act of 1887, which had created a system of allotment that divided tribal lands into individual parcels held in fee simple. By 1934, two-thirds of the land once held in common by tribes had been lost, often because allottees could not afford local property taxes.
Supported by Interior Secretary Harold L. Ickes and legal scholar Felix S. Cohen, Collier formulated a legislative programme to halt land loss, restore tribal self-government and protect cultural life. However, his belief that traditional Indian cultures were inherently superior to contemporary American society generated resistance from political and commercial interests. Congress therefore modified several of his proposals, retaining federal oversight through the BIA and limiting the degree of tribal autonomy.

Provisions and Early Implementation

The Act sought to end the allotment process and stabilise tribal land bases. While it did not return land that had already passed into private hands, it allowed the federal government to repurchase lands and place them into trust on behalf of tribes. It slowed the further fragmentation of tribal territories, although it preserved the complex “checkerboard” pattern of trust, fee, and individual allotments that characterises many reservations today.
The IRA also facilitated the reorganisation of tribal governments. Unless a majority of eligible tribal members explicitly rejected it, the Act’s self-government provisions came into force automatically. Many tribes adopted new constitutions under the Act’s framework, although others declined due to concerns about federal influence or the fit between IRA-style governance and local traditions.
Between 1934 and the mid-1950s, more than two million acres of land—over 8,000 square kilometres—were restored to tribal trust status. At the same time, the Interior Department strengthened policies for managing natural resources, including forestry. Following sustained grievances regarding mismanagement of timber resources, the Indian Claims Act of 1946 established sustained-yield forestry as a guiding principle for federal management of tribal forests.

Mid-Century Policy Shifts

In 1954, the federal government began to introduce the termination and relocation phases of policy—initiatives added by Congress but not part of Collier’s original design. Termination sought to end the federal recognition of tribal nations and assimilate their members into mainstream society. In total, 61 tribal governments were terminated, removing access to federal services and dissolving trust responsibilities. Forty-six of these nations later regained federal recognition, but the consequences of termination remain visible in disrupted governance structures and land ownership patterns.

Legal and Constitutional Challenges

Since the late twentieth century, legal disputes have centred on Section 5 of the IRA, which authorises the Secretary of the Interior to take land into trust for tribes. Land placed into trust becomes largely exempt from state jurisdiction, enabling expanded tribal authority, including the possibility of casino gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. States have frequently opposed trust acquisitions due to concerns over taxation and jurisdiction.
One prominent challenge occurred in South Dakota v. United States Department of the Interior (1995), where the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Section 5 unconstitutional under the nondelegation doctrine. The Supreme Court later vacated this ruling and remanded the case, after which subsequent litigation upheld the Act’s constitutionality. The Supreme Court repeatedly declined to rehear the issue, leaving lower-court precedents in place.
Further cases—including those in the First, Eighth and Tenth Circuits—have consistently upheld the IRA’s constitutionality. Although some judges, such as Janice Rogers Brown in the 2008 MichGO v. Kempthorne case, have dissented, the majority view has affirmed the federal government’s authority to take land into trust under the Act.
The Supreme Court revisited aspects of the IRA in Carcieri v. Salazar (2009), ruling that only tribes “under federal jurisdiction” in 1934 are eligible for land-into-trust acquisitions under Section 5. This decision introduced administrative and legal complexities regarding tribal recognition and trust applications, prompting ongoing legislative and policy debates.

Lasting Impact and Contemporary Significance

The Indian Reorganization Act remains one of the most consequential federal policies in modern Native American history. It halted the erosion of the tribal land base, facilitated economic development, and provided a legal foundation for tribal self-governance. Although its implementation was uneven and its acceptance varied among tribes, the IRA marked a turning point in federal Indian policy by acknowledging the importance of tribal sovereignty and collective landholding.
Its legacy continues to influence contemporary debates about land stewardship, federal recognition, natural resource management and the legal boundaries of tribal authority. The reshaping of federal–tribal relations initiated by the IRA has endured well into the twenty-first century, shaping the political landscape of Native American governance across the United States.