H.R. 2302House bill · 119th CongressOn the calendarNative Americans

Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians Land Transfer Act of 2025

Sponsored byTom McClintockR-CA-5Introduced Mar 24, 2025Full text on congress.gov ↗

Latest action (Sep 22, 2026) — under General Orders. Calendar No. 675.

What it does

Congressional Research Service, Mar 24, 2025

This bill takes approximately 204.14 acres of specified lands in El Dorado County, California, into trust for the benefit of the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians.

The bill revokes a specified public land order and administratively transfers the land from the Forest Service to the Department of the Interior. (In the public land order, the land was designated for use by the Forest Service as an experiment station.)

The bill directs Interior to take the following lands into trust for the benefit of the tribe: (1) approximately 85.3 acres of federal land managed by Interior's Bureau of Land Management (which includes the land transferred from the Forest Service), and (2) approximately 118.84 acres of fee land held by the tribe. These combined lands, approximately 204.14 acres, shall be part of the tribe's reservation. Further, the bill prohibits gaming on the land taken into trust.

Face Value

as passed the House
100Narrow

How much of this bill its name accounts for.

  • Every bill starts at100
  • Nothing counted against it: one area of law, and short enough that length doesn't register.

Face Value measures reach, not honesty. A big bill can be accurately named, and a low score is not an accusation — it means the contents reach further than any short title could describe. Count it yourself ↗ How this is worked out

Discussion

5 comments

Sign in to join the discussion and put your vote on the record.

Sort
8
birch_ledgerDemoLA-2voted Yea14d ago
This looks like it codifies practice that already exists informally. Worth doing — informal practice evaporates when an administration changes.
5
PragmaticPeteDemoAL-3voted Nay14d ago
No from me. Pushing the cost to states without saying so is still an unfunded mandate. The floor version may not be this version, which is the usual problem.
3
TenthAmendmentDemoTX-4voted Nay14d ago
This looks like it codifies practice that already exists informally. Worth doing — informal practice evaporates when an administration changes. Happy to be told I've read it wrong.
3
kwame.abadiDemoFL-1314d ago
Where are you reading that? I've been through the summary twice and can't find it.
1
RedRiverRonDemoNJ-1voted Nay14d ago
Voting no on process rather than substance. This hasn't had a hearing I can find, which is a lot of reach for a bill nobody has questioned in public. Someone closer to this than me should say whether that's right.
Your position on H.R. 2302No positions yet