§ 1775h TITLE 25—INDIANS Page 540

(2) Defenses

Notwithstanding any other provision of law,

if a party to an action described in paragraph

(1) reinstates the action during the period described in paragraph (1)(B)—

(A) no defense, such as laches, statute of

limitations, law of the case, res judicata, or

prior disposition may be asserted based on

the withdrawal of the action and reinstatement of the action; and

(B) the substance of any discussions leading to the State Agreement may not be admissible in any subsequent litigation, except

that, if any such action is reinstated, any

defense that would have been available to

the State of Connecticut at the time the action was withdrawn—

(i) may be asserted; and

(ii) is not waived by anything in the

State Agreement or by subsequent events

occurring between the withdrawal action

and commencement of the reinstated action.

(Pub. L. 103–377, §9, Oct. 19, 1994, 108 Stat. 3506.)

§ 1775h. Judicial review

(a) Jurisdiction

Notwithstanding any other provision of law,

during the period beginning on October 19, 1994,

and ending on the date that is 180 days after October 19, 1994, the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Connecticut shall

have exclusive jurisdiction over any action to

contest the constitutionality of this subchapter

or the validity of any agreement entered into

under the authority of this subchapter or approved by this subchapter.

(b) Deadline for filing

Effective with the termination of the period

specified in subsection (a) of this section, no

court shall have jurisdiction over any action to

contest the constitutionality of this subchapter

or the validity of any agreement entered into

under the authority of this subchapter or approved by this subchapter, unless such action

was filed prior to the date of termination of the

period specified in subsection (a) of this section.

(Pub. L. 103–377, §10, Oct. 19, 1994, 108 Stat. 3507.)

SUBCHAPTER X—CROW LAND CLAIMS

SETTLEMENT

§ 1776. Findings and purpose

(a) Findings

Congress finds the following:

(1) Under the treaty between the United

States of America and the Crow Tribe of Indians concluded May 7, 1868 (commonly known

as the ‘‘Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868’’; 15 Stat.

649), the eastern boundary of the Crow Indian

Reservation was established as the 107th meridian for approximately 90 miles from the

Yellowstone River to the boundary between

Montana and Wyoming.

(2) Under Executive orders issued in 1884 and

1900, the western boundary of the Northern

Cheyenne Reservation was established as the

107th meridian. The 107th meridian was intended to be the common boundary between

the Crow Reservation and Northern Cheyenne

Reservation for approximately 25 miles.

(3) From 1889 through 1891, a survey was conducted of the eastern boundary of the Crow

Reservation. The 1891 survey line strayed to

the west, and resulted in the exclusion from

the Crow Indian Reservation of a strip of land

of approximately 36,164 acres. Approximately

12,964 acres of such strip of land were included

in the Northern Cheyenne Reservation. Deposits of low sulphur coal underlie the land excluded from the Crow Indian Reservation, including the land included in the Northern

Cheyenne Indian Reservation.

(4)(A) The erroneous nature of the survey

was not discovered for several decades. Meanwhile, the areas along the 107th meridian to

the north and south of the Northern Cheyenne

Indian Reservation were opened to settlement

in the late nineteenth century and early part

of the twentieth century. Patents were issued

to non-Indian persons and to the State of Montana for most of the surface land and a significant portion of the minerals in these areas between the 107th meridian and the 1891 survey

line.

(B) The 12,964 acres included in the Northern

Cheyenne Reservation have been treated as

part of the Northern Cheyenne Reservation

and occupied by the Northern Cheyenne Tribe

and the Northern Cheyenne allottees, and

their successors in interest.

(5) Legislation to resolve the 107th meridian

boundary dispute was introduced in Congress

in the 1960’s and 1970’s, and again in 1992, but

no such legislation was enacted into law.

(b) Purpose

The purpose of this subchapter is to settle the

107th meridian boundary dispute created by the

erroneous survey of the eastern boundary of the

Crow Indian Reservation made by the Federal

Government described in subsection (a)(3) of this

section.

(Pub. L. 103–444, §2, Nov. 2, 1994, 108 Stat. 4632.)

SHORT TITLE

Section 1 of Pub. L. 103–444 provided that: ‘‘This Act

[enacting this subchapter] may be cited as the ‘Crow

Boundary Settlement Act of 1994’.’’

SECTION REFERRED TO IN OTHER SECTIONS

This section is referred to in section 1776j of this

title.

§ 1776a. Definitions

As used in this subchapter:

(1) Crow Tribe

The term ‘‘Crow Tribe’’ means the Crow

Tribe of Indians, the duly recognized governing body of the Crow Indian Reservation.

(2) Disputed area

The term ‘‘disputed area’’ means the approximately 36,164 acres of land, including the

minerals, located between the 107th meridian

on the east and the 1891 survey line on the

west from the Yellowstone River on the north

to the boundary between the State of Wyoming and the State of Montana on the south.