Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Ass'n

Last updated

Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued November 30, 1987
Decided April 19, 1988
Full case name Richard E. Lyng, Secretary of Agriculture, et al., Petitioners v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association, et al.
Citations485 U.S. 439 ( more )
108 S. Ct. 1319; 99 L. Ed. 2d 534; 1988 U.S. LEXIS 1871; 56 U.S.L.W. 4292; 18 ELR 21043
Holding
The American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 (AIRFA) does not create a cause of action under which to sue, nor does it contain any judicially enforceable rights. [1]
Court membership
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Associate Justices
William J. Brennan Jr.  · Byron White
Thurgood Marshall  · Harry Blackmun
John P. Stevens  · Sandra Day O'Connor
Antonin Scalia  · Anthony Kennedy
Case opinions
MajorityO'Connor, joined by Rehnquist, White, Stevens, Scalia
DissentBrennan, joined by Marshall, Blackmun
Kennedy took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association, 485 U.S. 439 (1988), was a United States Supreme Court landmark [2] case in which the Court ruled on the applicability of the Free Exercise Clause to the practice of religion on Native American sacred lands, specifically in the Chimney Rock area of the Six Rivers National Forest in California. [2] This area, also known as the High Country, was used by the Yurok, Karuk, and Tolowa tribes as a religious site.

Contents

The ruling is considered a key example of judicial restraint by the Supreme Court. [3]

Background

In 1982, the United States Forest Service drew up a report known as the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that examined the environmental impact of constructing a proposed road through and possibly harvesting timber in the Six Rivers National Forest. Due to the religious importance of the area, the study found that if the U.S. Forest Service’s plans went forward, the damage done to the land would be severe and irreparable. Therefore, the report advised against both the road and timber harvesting. Additionally, the EIS suggested possible alternative was routes that avoided key religious sites. However, this recommendation and the rest of the report was rejected by the U.S. Forest Service. [4] The report commissioned by the United States Forest Service recognized that the construction of the road would destroy the religion of the American Indian tribes.

American Indian groups (led by the Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association) and the State of California sued for an injunction, challenging both the road building and timber harvesting decisions. The court issued a permanent injunction that prohibited the Government from constructing the Chimney Rock section of the road or putting the timber harvesting plan into effect, holding, inter alia, that such actions would violate respondent Indians' rights under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and would violate certain federal statutes. [5]

The Trial Court found for Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association and issued an injunction. The USFS appealed. The Appellate Court affirmed and the USFS appealed again bringing the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

As a case before the U.S. Supreme Court, Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective was argued on November 30, 1987. The petitioner, Richard E. Lyng, the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture at the time, claimed that constructing a road and harvesting timber through lands considered sacred by Native American tribes did not violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. [6] The respondent in the case was the Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association, et al.

With the claim at hand, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to rule on the question of whether the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause prohibited the government from harvesting or developing the Chimney Rock Area. [7]

Opinion of the Court

After much deliberation, the holding of the court was released on April 19, 1988. In a vote of 5-3 (Anthony M. Kennedy did not participate), the court ruled that "construction of the proposed road does not violate the First Amendment regardless of its effect on the religious practices of the respondents because it compels no behavior contrary to their belief".

In support of the decision, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor cited Bowen v. Roy (1986), a previous U.S. Supreme Court case that involved a family who did not wish to give their child a social security number for religious reasons. Also argued with regard to the Free Exercise Clause, this holding of the court in this case was that the government could not change its system and make an exception for an individual because of religiously based reasons. Judging by the parallels in this case with that of Lyng, Justice O’ Connor found that although damage would certainly be done to the Six Rivers/Chimney Rock area, the road construction and timber harvesting would not force individuals to violate their beliefs or be denied of the equal rights shared by other citizens of the United States. [8] In deciding the case, the Supreme Court had to determine whether a government action would cause a "substantial burden" on religion. Since the United States Forest Service's report had recognized that the religion of tribes would effectively be irreparably harmed, the tribes had a strong argument that they met this element of the law. However, the Supreme Court set out new requirements for proving substantial burden. The Court stated that a substantial burden only exist where the government imposes a sanction (fine or imprisonment) or denies a benefit to individuals that they would otherwise be entitled to receive. Since this case involved neither, the decision found that no substantial burden existed.

Justice William J. Brennan Jr. disagreed with the majority opinion and, with a citation of the case Sherbert v. Verner (1963), declared that the holding of Lyng stripped Native Americans of their Constitutional protection against threats to their religious practices. [9]

The United States Supreme Court reversed and allowed the road to be built.

The Supreme Court cited Bowen v. Roy (476 U.S. 693 (1986)) and, in a 3-5 [7] decision, found that the Free Exercise Clause affords an individual protection from certain forms of governmental compulsions, but it does not afford an individual a right to dictate the conduct of the government's internal procedures.

Subsequent developments

After the case was decided, Congress intervened and designated the area a "wilderness" under the Wilderness Act, and the road was not built. [10] The Act protected the High Country, by adding it to the Siskiyou Wilderness Area.

Suzan Shown Harjo, a Cheyenne-Muskogee writer and activist who influenced the drafting of the American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA) of 1978, called Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association a "stunning defeat" for the Native American cause. [11] In a twenty-five-year retrospective of AIRFA, published in 2004, she described how the Lyng decision galvanized Native American activists to press for other claims, for example in fishing rights, and how it helped to inspire efforts towards the "repatriation" of Native American cultural materials while contributing to the establishment of the Smithsonian's National Museum of the American Indian. [11]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">First Amendment to the United States Constitution</span> 1791 amendment limiting government restriction of civil rights

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prevents Congress from making laws respecting an establishment of religion; prohibiting the free exercise of religion; or abridging the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the freedom of assembly, or the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights. In the original draft of the Bill of Rights, what is now the First Amendment occupied third place. The first two articles were not ratified by the states, so the article on disestablishment and free speech ended up being first.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Tongass National Forest</span> National forest in southeast Alaska

The Tongass National Forest in Southeast Alaska is the largest U.S. National Forest at 16.7 million acres. Most of its area is temperate rain forest and is remote enough to be home to many species of endangered and rare flora and fauna. The Tongass, which is managed by the United States Forest Service, encompasses islands of the Alexander Archipelago, fjords and glaciers, and peaks of the Coast Mountains. An international border with Canada runs along the crest of the Boundary Ranges of the Coast Mountains. The forest is administered from Forest Service offices in Ketchikan. There are local ranger district offices located in Craig, Hoonah, Juneau, Ketchikan, Petersburg, Sitka, Thorne Bay, Wrangell, and Yakutat.

The Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873), was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision which ruled that the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution only protects the legal rights that are associated with federal U.S. citizenship, not those that pertain to state citizenship. Though the decision in the Slaughter-House Cases minimized the impact of the Privileges or Immunities Clause on state law, the Supreme Court would later incorporate the Bill of Rights to strike down state laws on the basis of other clauses. In 2010, the Court rejected arguments in McDonald v. Chicago to overrule the established precedent of Slaughterhouse and decided instead to incorporate the Second Amendment via the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Tribal sovereignty in the United States</span> Type of political status of Native Americans

Tribal sovereignty in the United States is the concept of the inherent authority of Indigenous tribes to govern themselves within the borders of the United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Religious Freedom Restoration Act</span> 1993 United States federal law

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 103-141, 107 Stat. 1488, codified at 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb through 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-4, is a 1993 United States federal law that "ensures that interests in religious freedom are protected." The bill was introduced by Congressman Chuck Schumer (D–NY) on March 11, 1993. A companion bill was introduced in the Senate by Ted Kennedy (D-MA) the same day. A unanimous U.S. House and a nearly unanimous U.S. Senate—three senators voted against passage—passed the bill, and President Bill Clinton signed it into law.

Wisconsin v. Jonas Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972), is the case in which the United States Supreme Court found that Amish children could not be placed under compulsory education past 8th grade. The parents' fundamental right to freedom of religion was determined to outweigh the state's interest in educating their children. The case is often cited as a basis for parents' right to educate their children outside of traditional private or public schools.

<i>United States v. Washington</i> 1974 court case

United States v. Washington, 384 F. Supp. 312, aff'd, 520 F.2d 676, commonly known as the Boldt Decision, was a legal case in 1974 heard in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The case re-affirmed the rights of American Indian tribes in the state of Washington to co-manage and continue to harvest salmon and other fish under the terms of various treaties with the U.S. government. The tribes ceded their land to the United States but reserved the right to fish as they always had. This included their traditional locations off the designated reservations.

In United States law, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, together with that Amendment's Free Exercise Clause, form the constitutional right of freedom of religion. The Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause together read:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

The Free Exercise Clause accompanies the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause together read:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), is a United States Supreme Court case that held that the state could deny unemployment benefits to a person fired for violating a state prohibition on the use of peyote even though the use of the drug was part of a religious ritual. Although states have the power to accommodate otherwise illegal acts performed in pursuit of religious beliefs, they are not required to do so.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Six Rivers National Forest</span> National forest in California, USA

The Six Rivers National Forest is a U.S. National Forest located in the northwestern corner of California. It was established on June 3rd, 1947 by U.S. President Harry S. Truman from portions of Klamath, Siskiyou and Trinity National Forests. Its over one million acres (4,000 km2) of land contain a variety of ecosystems and 137,000 acres (550 km2) of old growth forest. It lies in parts of four counties; in descending order of forestland area they are Del Norte, Humboldt, Trinity, and Siskiyou counties. The forest is named after the Eel, Van Duzen, Klamath, Trinity, Mad, and Smith rivers, which pass through or near the forest's boundaries.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">American Indian Religious Freedom Act</span> United States Law protecting Native Americans religious practices

The American Indian Religious Freedom Act, Public Law No. 95–341, 92 Stat. 469, codified at 42 U.S.C. § 1996, is a United States federal law, enacted by joint resolution of the Congress in 1978. Prior to the act, many aspects of Native American religions and sacred ceremonies had been prohibited by law.

Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884), was a United States Supreme Court landmark 1884 decision with respect to the citizenship status of Indians.

<i>Talton v. Mayes</i> 1896 United States Supreme Court case

Talton v. Mayes, 163 U.S. 376 (1896), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case, in which the court decided that the individual rights protections, which limit federal, and later, state governments, do not apply to tribal government. It reaffirmed earlier decisions, such as the 1831 Cherokee Nation v. Georgia case, that gave Indian tribes the status of "domestic dependent nations," the sovereignty of which is independent of the federal government.

The California Wilderness Act of 1984 is a federal law, passed by the United States Congress on September 28, 1984, that authorized the addition of over 3 million acres (12,000 km2) within the state of California to the National Wilderness Preservation System. Conservation activist George Whitmore later credited the Act with establishing "the longest stretch of de facto wilderness in the lower 48 states."

Peak Eight is a summit in Del Norte County, California, sacred to the Yurok, Karok and Tolowa tribes.

United States v. Nice, 241 U.S. 591 (1916), is a United States Supreme Court decision which declared that Congress still retains plenary power to protect Native American interests when Native Americans are granted citizenship. United States v. Nice overruled the Heff decision which declared that Native Americans granted citizenship by the Dawes Act were also then citizens of the state in which they resided, meaning the sale of alcohol to such Native Americans was not subject to Congress's authority.

Washington v. Confederated Bands and Tribes of the Yakima Indian Nation, 439 U.S. 463 (1979), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the State of Washington's imposition of partial jurisdiction over certain actions on an Indian reservation, when not requested by the tribe, was valid under Public Law 280.

<i>In the Courts of the Conqueror</i> 2010 book by Walter R. Echo-Hawk

In the Courts of the Conqueror: The 10 Worst Indian Law Cases Ever Decided is a 2010 legal non-fiction book by Walter R. Echo-Hawk, a Justice of the Supreme Court of the Pawnee Nation, an adjunct professor of law at the University of Tulsa College of Law, and of counsel with Crowe & Dunlevy.

References

  1. ↑ "Summary of Law: American Indian Religious Freedom Act" (PDF). National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Archived from the original (PDF) on March 4, 2020. Retrieved July 22, 2020.
  2. 1 2 Wilson, Celeste. "Native Americans and Free Exercise Claims: A Pattern of Inconsistent Application of First Amendment Rights and Insufficient Legislation for Natives Seeking Freedom in Religious (Page 2 and 15 - 17)" (PDF). University of Idaho. Archived from the original (PDF) on July 23, 2020. Retrieved July 22, 2020.
  3. ↑ "Judicial restraint - Ballotpedia" . Retrieved May 1, 2017.
  4. ↑ Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Ass'n, 485 U.S. 439 (1988).
  5. ↑ "Richard e. LYNG, Secretary of Agriculture, et al., Petitioners v. NORTHWEST INDIAN CEMETERY PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION et al".
  6. ↑ "Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association (1988)".
  7. 1 2 "Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association". Oyez.
  8. ↑ "Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association, 485 U.S. 439 (1988)".
  9. ↑ "Richard e. LYNG, Secretary of Agriculture, et al., Petitioners v. NORTHWEST INDIAN CEMETERY PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION et al".
  10. ↑ "Natural Resources Law - Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association". Archived from the original on July 13, 2011. Retrieved March 9, 2011.
  11. 1 2 Harjo, Suzan Shown (Autumn 2004). "Keynote Lecture: The American Indian Religious Freedom Act: Looking Back and Looking Forward". Wíčazo Ša Review. 19 (2): 143–51. doi:10.1353/wic.2004.0020. S2CID   161592729 – via JSTOR.

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.