H.R. 2827House bill · 119th CongressOn the calendarNative Americans

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

Sponsored byTom ColeR-OK-4Introduced Apr 10, 2025Full text on congress.gov ↗

Latest action (Aug 20, 2026) , Calendar No. 663.

What it does

Congressional Research Service, Apr 10, 2025

This bill confers jurisdiction to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims for the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma's land claim arising under the Treaty of Grouseland. The court must render judgement without regard to the statute of limitations or any delay-based defense. This jurisdiction expires unless such a claim is filed within one year.

All other claims, including any future claims, of the tribe to land in Illinois are extinguished.

Face Value

as reported to 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

6 comments

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

Sort
9
hollowbrookDemoTX-14voted Nay9d ago
The reporting requirements are the useful part. You can't argue about something nobody is required to measure. I'd rather see it fixed in committee than argued about on the floor.
4
n_farhadiDemoMO-4voted Nay9d ago
Where are you reading that? I've been through the summary twice and can't find it.
6
wxriveraDemoMN-4voted Nay8d ago
I'd like to see the fiscal note before taking a position. The summary is silent on cost, which is normally the whole argument.
1
nell.ferreiraDemoNC-6voted Nay8d ago
You're right about the drafting, but that's fixable in conference. Killing it means starting over next Congress.
4
nell.ferreiraDemoNC-6voted Nay8d ago
I'd like to see the fiscal note before taking a position. The summary is silent on cost, which is normally the whole argument. The floor version may not be this version, which is the usual problem.
2
n_farhadiDemoMO-4voted Nay9d ago
In favour. The transparency provisions alone justify it, and they're the hardest part to undo later. It'll come down to what the agency does with it.
Your position on H.R. 2827No positions yet