Tribal Lawsuit Raises Unusual Religious Liberty Question

In Havasupai Tribe v. Arizona Board of Regents, (AZ Ct. App., Nov. 28, 2008), an Arizona state appellate court decided a procedural issue in a case that raises a fascinating religious liberty question. The procedural issue was whether plaintiffs adequately complied with the notice of claims requirement in Arizona law that applies to suits filed against public entities or public employees. Focusing on that issue, in a 2-1 decision the court reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants.

Underlying the procedural wrangling is a claim by the Havasupai Indians and tribal members that blood samples given to Arizona State University researchers were used for purposes beyond those consented to. Researchers were to study whether genetics accounted for the large increase in diabetes among tribe members. However when that study was completed, the blood samples were also used to study the evolutionary genetics of the Havaupai, including theories regarding the ancient migration of populations across the Bering Strait from Asia to North America. That notion contradicts the Havasupai belief that, as a people, they originated in the Grand Canyon. Reporting on the case, yesterday's East Valley Tribune quotes plaintiff's attorney:

It's a life-altering event for each and every one of those tribal members that academic institutions and science is now telling these folks that their religion and their cultural beliefs are wrong.... They would have never opened themselves up to this type of scrutiny or challenge to their belief systems, not in a million years would they have done that, had they known that this was the true intent of Arizona State University and others.

The AP also reported on the decision yesterday.