Was the Indian Removal Act ever Repealed?

[NYDem]

The Indian Removal Act, infamous for authorizing the removal of the Five Civilized Tribes west of the Mississippi, was narrowly passed by congress on May 28, 1830. Wikipedia mentions that the act was strongly enforced during Jackson and Van Burens' administrations, but doesn't mention any subsequent developments. I was was curious whether the law was ever repealed. Some Googling revealed an unsourced claim from a few sites that the Indian Removal Act was repealed in "March 1980". I can't find this supposed repealing act anywhere, nor can I find a title or date of passage. I found a list of the laws of the 96th Congress, checked the laws passed in 1980 which had "Indian" in the title and found nothing. Do any of Atlas' more legal-minded posters know what the actual status of this law is?

[NewYorkExpress]

I don't think so. But is there really a need to repeal it? Who is going to enforce this now? Even the most racist of our politicians aren't running on this, and haven't been for at least one hundred years.

[NYDem]

I don't think so. But is there really a need to repeal it? Who is going to enforce this now? Even the most racist of our politicians aren't running on this, and haven't been for at least one hundred years.

I don't have any real concern over the law being enforced today, my question is just one of historical curiosity. It seems odd to me that a few different sites would have a month and year for a supposed repeal that never actually happened. Cite your sources people!

In general just letting laws fall out of use and go unenforced seems like bad practice. Obsolete or outdated laws should be repealed, and all valid laws should be enforced.

[President Johnson]

I don't think so. But is there really a need to repeal it? Who is going to enforce this now? Even the most racist of our politicians aren't running on this, and haven't been for at least one hundred years.

I guess a repeal would just be a formal act to acknowledge that it was wrong?

A somewhat similar case is Franklin Roosevelt's executive order on Japanese internment. This was not formally repealed until 1976, when Gerald Ford signed a proclamation that revoked the order. It didn't have any actual impact of course, but was just a recognition that internment was wrong (I think congress later passed a compensations bill signed by Reagan).

[Vice President Christian Man]

It would be great if Biden repealed it on May 28th, the anniversary.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

May not technically be a repeal, but the Brownback resolution from 2009 (which for some reason ended up being passed as part of the Defense Appropriation bill rather than on its own) mentions the "Federal Government policy of forced removal."
https://www.congress.gov/bill/111th-congress/senate-joint-resolution/14/text

[Donerail]

In general just letting laws fall out of use and go unenforced seems like bad practice. Obsolete or outdated laws should be repealed, and all valid laws should be enforced.

In theory, all current valid laws are contained in the US Code; the Indian Removal Act isn't in there in its entirety. The Removal Act dates back to an era before the federal government even published statutes in the Statutes at Large, much less in a Code (they were instead published in newspapers). Only sections 7 and 8 were included in the Revised Statutes, R.S. § 2114, and are still good law as of today.

The President is authorized to exercise general superintendence and care over any tribe or nation which was removed upon an exchange of territory under authority of the act of May 28, 1830, “to provide for an exchange of lands with the Indians residing in any of the States or Territories, and for their removal west of the Mississippi;” and to cause such tribe or nation to be protected, at their new residence, against all interruption or disturbance from any other tribe or nation of Indians, or from any other person or persons whatever.

25 U.S.C. § 174.

The rest of the Indian Removal Act does not appear in the Revised Statutes, presumably because they were seen as temporary. Removal being accomplished, there was no reason to include them in the codified laws.

[NYDem]

In general just letting laws fall out of use and go unenforced seems like bad practice. Obsolete or outdated laws should be repealed, and all valid laws should be enforced.

In theory, all current valid laws are contained in the US Code; the Indian Removal Act isn't in there in its entirety. The Removal Act dates back to an era before the federal government even published statutes in the Statutes at Large, much less in a Code (they were instead published in newspapers). Only sections 7 and 8 were included in the Revised Statutes, R.S. § 2114, and are still good law as of today.

The President is authorized to exercise general superintendence and care over any tribe or nation which was removed upon an exchange of territory under authority of the act of May 28, 1830, “to provide for an exchange of lands with the Indians residing in any of the States or Territories, and for their removal west of the Mississippi;” and to cause such tribe or nation to be protected, at their new residence, against all interruption or disturbance from any other tribe or nation of Indians, or from any other person or persons whatever.

25 U.S.C. § 174.

The rest of the Indian Removal Act does not appear in the Revised Statutes, presumably because they were seen as temporary. Removal being accomplished, there was no reason to include them in the codified laws.

Thanks for the help. So sections 7 and 8 are still on the books, sections 1-6 are omitted.

I am admittedly not an expert in law, but does the omission of a law from the Code necessarily imply that it is no longer enforceable? According to Wikipedia Title 25 is not codified as positive law.

[Donerail]

In general just letting laws fall out of use and go unenforced seems like bad practice. Obsolete or outdated laws should be repealed, and all valid laws should be enforced.

In theory, all current valid laws are contained in the US Code; the Indian Removal Act isn't in there in its entirety. The Removal Act dates back to an era before the federal government even published statutes in the Statutes at Large, much less in a Code (they were instead published in newspapers). Only sections 7 and 8 were included in the Revised Statutes, R.S. § 2114, and are still good law as of today.

The President is authorized to exercise general superintendence and care over any tribe or nation which was removed upon an exchange of territory under authority of the act of May 28, 1830, “to provide for an exchange of lands with the Indians residing in any of the States or Territories, and for their removal west of the Mississippi;” and to cause such tribe or nation to be protected, at their new residence, against all interruption or disturbance from any other tribe or nation of Indians, or from any other person or persons whatever.

25 U.S.C. § 174.

The rest of the Indian Removal Act does not appear in the Revised Statutes, presumably because they were seen as temporary. Removal being accomplished, there was no reason to include them in the codified laws.

Thanks for the help. So sections 7 and 8 are still on the books, sections 1-6 are omitted.

I am admittedly not an expert in law, but does the omission of a law from the Code necessarily imply that it is no longer enforceable? According to Wikipedia Title 25 is not codified as positive law.

In principle, yes, in practice (1) the Code is the law and (2) Cohen's is the law, and Cohen's says it's just 7 & 8.