10th Circuit Rejects Qualified Immunity Defense In Suit By Native American Inmates

In Williams v. Hansen, (10th Cir., July 21, 2021), the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals held that a suit by Native American inmates against prison officials should not have been dismissed on qualified immunity grounds. Banning Native American religious services for at least 9 days and the use of tobacco for services for 30 days could have violated a clearly established constitutional right of prisoner to freely exercise their religious beliefs.

9th Circuit Refuses Emergency Injunction For Apache Tribal Members

In a 2-1 decision in Apache Stronghold v. United States, (9th Cir., March 5, 2021), the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of appeals refused to issue an injunction pending appeal in the attempt by Apache tribal members to prevent the transfer of sacred Apache ceremonial ground to Resolution Copper. At the beginning of this month, the Biden Administration delayed the pending transfer by withdrawing a previous environmental impact statement. (See prior posting.) The 9th Circuit majority said in part:

The Government has averred that USFS “will not proceed to convey any right, title, and/or interest... to Resolution Copper” until after publication of a new FEIS, which will take “months.” The Government has also stated, under penalty of perjury, that USFS “will provide 30-days advance notice” to Apache Stronghold prior to the publication of a new FEIS. These representations mean that Apache Stronghold has not shown that it “needs relief within 21 days to avoid irreparable harm” pursuant to its request for an emergency stay.

Judge Bumatay filed a lengthy dissent, saying in part:

We are asked to trust the Government that, left to its own devices, it will not transfer the land to Resolution Copper in the near future. Faced with such a substantial harm to the Western Apaches’ free exercise rights, we should require more than the Government’s say-so.

School's Refusal To Allow Modified Graduation Cap Upheld

In Waln v. Dysart School District, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38345 (D AZ, Feb. 28, 2021), an Arizona federal district court rejected free exercise, free speech and equal protection challenges to a school district's refusal to allow a graduating senior to wear a decorated cap at graduation ceremonies.  The student was a member of the Sioux tribe and for cultural and religious reasons wanted to wear a beaded cap adorned with an eagle feather. The school district allowed Native American students to wear in their hair, or as a necklace or jewelry, but did not permit altered commencement caps. The court said in part:

[A]dopting an appearance of neutrality with regard to religion or cultural viewpoints, and the avoidance of controversy, have been deemed reasonable bases for subject-matter limitations, such as limitations on religious expression, on a student's free speech rights.... In this matter, all expressive speech, including but not limited to religious speech, was prohibited by the dress code blanketly prohibiting the augmentation of graduation caps, and the restriction was reasonable and related to the purpose of the forum. And, most notably, the prohibition of any adornment of any kind on a student's graduation cap during the commencement ceremonies was content-neutral.

USDA Delays Transfer of Sacred Apache Ceremonial Site

As previously reported, last month an Arizona federal district court refused to enjoin a federal conveyance of a sacred Apache ceremonial ground know as Oak Flat to Resolution Copper. Yesterday the Department of Agriculture announced that it has delayed the transfer by rescinding its previous environmental impact statement, saying in part:

The recent Presidential Memorandum on tribal consultation and strengthening nation to nation relationships counsels in favor of ensuring the Forest Service has complied with the environmental, cultural, and archaeological analyses required. USDA has concluded that additional time is necessary to fully understand concerns raised by Tribes and the public.... Because the Resolution Copper Mine and Land Exchange Project was directed under the 2015 National Defense Authorization Act, long term protection of the site will likely require an act of Congress. USDA and the Forest Service cannot give a precise length of time for completing the re-initiation of consultation but consultations such as this generally take several months.

Arizona Republic reports on the USDA's action.

Apache Leaders Sue To Prevent Forest Service Transfer of Religious Site

Suit was filed this week in an Arizona federal district court on behalf of traditional Apache religious and cultural leaders seeking to prevent the U.S. Forest Service from transferring to mining companies a parcel of land used by the Western Apache Peoples for traditional religious ceremonies. The complaint (full text) in Apache Stronghold v. United States, (D AZ, filed 1/12/2021) alleges in part:

The deliberate and direct effect of the Defendants’ publicly stated plans and planned actions is to illegally annihilate the religious freedom rights of the Western Apache Peoples at a sacred and actively utilized religious place and traditional Western Apache cultural property known to the Apache since time immemorial as Chi’chil Biłdagoteel [or] as it is commonly known: “Oak Flat.” ***

[T]he Forest Service ... has suddenly publicly stated for the first time its intent to publish a Final Environmental Impact Statement ... on ... January 15, 2021.  That ... will immediately enable the Forest Service to attempt to convey a 2,422-acre parcel of “Forest Service land” to an entity owned entirely by foreign mining corporations, pursuant to a mandate in Section 3003 of the “Cromnibus” National Defense Authorization Act of 2015 ... slipped in at the 11th hour with a total federal government operational shutdown looming....

Apache Stronghold issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit. 

New Hampshire Supreme Court Says State Constitution Requires Strict Scrutiny of Free Exercise Infringements

In State of New Hampshire v. Mack, (NH Sup. Ct., Dec.  22, 2020), the New Hampshire Supreme Court held that the state Constitution's elaborate guarantee of free exercise of religion so long as one does not "disturb the public peace" should be read to require strict scrutiny.  The court vacated a trial court's refusal to dismiss a drug prosecution brought against defendant who was a member of the Oklevueha Native American Church. Defendant was convicted of possession of psilocyn and psilocybin for use in religious rituals. The court concluded that the state constitution gives greater free exercise protection against burdens from neutral generally applicable laws than does the U.S. Constitution under the Smith case. The court said in part:

We ... conclude that when religious practices violate a generally applicable law, our State Constitution ... demands that “there . . . be a balancing of [the] competing interests.” ...  [W]e choose to adhere to our traditional formulation of strict judicial scrutiny — requiring the State to demonstrate that its action is “necessary to achieve a compelling governmental interest and narrowly tailored to meet that end.” ... Accordingly, under Part I, Article 5, once an individual establishes that the government action substantially burdens his or her sincere religious practice, ... the burden shifts to the State to show both that the government action is necessary to achieve a compelling government interest, and is narrowly tailored to meet that end....

The Union Leader reports on the decision.

Dakota Access Pipeline Protesters Can Move Ahead On Free Speech, But Not Free Exercise, Claims

In Thunderhawk v. County of Morton, North Dakota, (D ND, Sept. 1, 2020), plaintiffs challenged on numerous constitutional grounds North Dakota's closure of Highway 1806 which was used by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and thousands of its supporters to access campsites set up to protest construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline. In a 101-page opinion (which has just been widely made available) the court allowed plaintiffs to move ahead with their claims that the closure prevented them from engaging in protected speech and amounted to a prior restraint on speech. The court however rejected plaintiffs' free exercise claims, saying in part:

While the Plaintiffs provided facts in the Amended Complaint to suggest the Defendants’ actions in closing the road may not meet strict or intermediate scrutiny for their free speech claims, they have failed to allege facts suggesting the road closure may not meet rational basis as it relates to their free exercise claim. Because the Plaintiffs have failed to meet this burden, and as a result of neither Smith exceptions applying in this case to heighten the standard to strict scrutiny, Claim II is dismissed.

The court also rejected a variety of other constitutional challenges including right to travel and commerce clause claims. Turtle Talk blog has links to all the pleadings in the case.

In Canada, Parent's Suit Challenges Classroom Demonstration of Smudging Ceremony

CTV News and Nanaimo News reported yesterday on the opening of a trial in Nanaimo, British Columbia in a suit against a school district because of a classroom demonstration of a Nuu-chah-nulth smudging ceremony. Plaintiff, the mother of a child in the elementary school classroom where the demonstration was carried out in 2015, says that the exercise violated her daughter's rights.  The daughter asked to leave the room, but her teacher told her that this would be rude and that she must stay in class and participate.  The lawyer filing the case said: "We believe that the government cannot compel citizens to participate in supernatural or religious ceremonies."

Mormon Church Sued In Tribal Court Over Abuse of Student

AP reports on a lawsuit filed Tuesday against the Mormon Church in a Navajo Tribal Court. Plaintiff, identified only as LB, was part of the Mormon Church's Indian Student Placement Program which began in the 1940's and was designed to give educational opportunities to Native American children.  LB alleges that he was sexually molested three times in the 1980's by a Church bishop who lived across the street from the foster family with whom LB had been placed.  The suit seeks damages for failure to supervise participants in the program and for failing to report the abuse to authorities or to the victim's family.  The Church has contended that Tribal Courts lack jurisdiction over the lawsuit.

Hopi Tribe Loses Public Nuisance Challenge To Snowbowl Expansion

In Hopi Tribe v. Arizona Snowbowl Resort Limited Partnership, (AZ Sup. Ct., Nov. 29, 2018), the Arizona Supreme Court in a 5-2 decision, rejected the Hopi Tribe's attempt to invoke public nuisance law to challenge the sale of wastewater to make artificial snow at a ski resort on federal land.  The land has been traditionally used by the Hopi for religious and ceremonial purposes.  Under Arizona law, a private party can challenge a public nuisance only if the party can show special injury different from that suffered by the public at large. In the latest chapter of the Hopi's long-running attempt to challenge the Snowbowl expansion, the majority held that environmental damage to public land with religious, cultural, or emotional significance to the tribe is not enough to create "special injury." The majority said in part:

because a particular place’s religious importance is inherently subjective, ... courts are ill-equipped to determine whether “one form of incidental interference with an individual’s spiritual activities” should be analyzed differently from that of another....

At its core, the special injury requirement serves a gatekeeping function that prevents courts from deciding issues under the guise of public nuisance claims when such issues are best left to public officials, a pivotal principle in federal cases grappling with religious freedom challenges to public land uses.

Chief Justice Bales, joined by Justice Bolick, dissented, saying in part:

[T]he Hopi face the destruction and desecration of some of their most sacred locations and practices. This is the harm that the majority claims is no different than that suffered by the public at large.... But the general public does not have millennia of religious practice in the area that will be covered in a fine film of reclaimed sewage. Nor does the general public have rights of access and use - rooted in Hopi tradition and cultural practices - recognized by federal statutes.

Arizona Republic reports on the decision.

Prison Cannot Limit Participation In Native American Religious Ceremonies To Ethnic Native Americans

In Guardado v. Nevada, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177365 (D NV, Oct. 16, 2018), a Nevada federal district court held that a Mexican-American inmate's free exercise rights protected by RLUIPA were violated when the Nevada prison system implemented a requirement of the Nevada Indian Commission that participation in Native American religious ceremonies in prison be limited to those of Native American heritage. Plaintiff had argued that no other religion requires inmates to show proof of their ethnicity to practice their beliefs. The court, concluding that it need not reach plaintiff's equal protection arguments since the practice violates RLUIPA, held:

Here, the Court is satisfied that Plaintiff's Native American religious beliefs are sincerely held. Further, AR 810 is a substantial burden on Plaintiff's free exercise as he is Mexican-American and cannot show that he is Native American or provide documentation that he is registered or affiliated with any recognized tribe.... Defendants have not shown that any safety or security issues are likely to arise from Plaintiff's participation in Native American religious ceremonies.

The court issued a preliminary injunction requiring  that defendants permit Ernest Guardado "to participate in Native American religious ceremonies with the Native American practitioners including sweat lodge, prayer circle, drum circle, smudging, sacred pipe, and access to the Native Indian grounds."

Court Says Tribe Has Standing, But Did Not Prove Its RFRA Claim

As previously reported, in March an Oregon federal magistrate judge recommended dismissing a RFRA challenge to the destruction of sacred Native American burial grounds.  In reviewing the magistrate's recommendation, the district court in Slockish v. U.S. Federal Highway Administration, (D OR, June 11, 2018) held, disagreeing with the magistrate judge, that plaintiffs have standing to bring the challenge.  However the court still held that the RFRA claim should be dismissed because plaintiffs had not established a prima facie case of a substantial burden on their religious exercise.  Reporting on the decision, KUOW News says that members of the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation and members of the Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde will appeal to the 9th Circuit.

Wisconsin Supreme Court, Splitting Equally, Upholds Protection of Indian Graves

In Wingra Redi-Mix, Inc. v. State Historical Society of Wisconsin, (WI Sup. Ct., May 22, 2018), the Wisconsin Supreme Court  divided equally, 3-3, in a challenge to a concrete company that was seeking a permit to allow it to dig up Indian burial mounds located in its quarry.  The vote has the effect of affirming the appeals court opinion which upheld the State Historical Society's denial of a permit. An AP report has more on the decision and its background.

Native Americans Sue To Keep Use of Prayer Ground

On Monday, a suit was filed in New Jersey federal district court on behalf of the Native American Ramapough Lenape Nation claiming that local officials along with a neighboring housing association are attempting to prevent the Ramapoughs from using their own prayer ground for religious activities. (See prior related posting.)  The complaint (full text) in Ramapough Mountain Indians, Inc. v. Township of Mahwah, (D NJ, filed 5/14/2018), alleges in part:

Defendant Township of Mahwah is imposing cumulative crippling fines against plaintiff Ramapough of $12,500 per day, totalling $480,000 as of May 14, 2018, to end religious use of property, to eliminate sacred sites, and prevent assembly.

...  By letter dated September 5, 2017 Mahwah sent a letter purporting to revoke a 2012 zoning permit that it failed to disclose to Ramapough or State Courts recognizing religious use and logs with masks carved in them ... unilaterally and secretly without notice nor opportunity to be heard.

... Defendant Polo Club, in furtherance of this campaign to pressure the Ramapough Nation into ceasing its religious practices, to assemble and in fact to yield up the land, has made numerous unfounded complaints to the police department and used the New Jersey municipal "private warrant" process to bring criminal charges against Ramapough members.

Plaintiffs claim that these actions violate their 1st and 14th Amendment rights, RLUIPA and international treaties.  Courthouse News Service reports on the lawsuit.

Rulemaking Petition Seeks Changes In Eagle Feather Restrictions

Yesterday the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty announced the filing of a formal Rulemaking Petition (full text) with the Department of Interior on behalf of Native American feather dancer Robert Soto.  The petition seeks rule changes that would expand the ability of Native Americans who are not members of federally recognized tribes to use eagle feathers in their religious worship:

The Department’s regulations are so restrictive that they ban all kinds of sincere religious behavior. Today, nearly every bird species native to North America is federally protected.  So, a grandmother who bestows an eagle feather on her nonenrolled grandson to honor his college graduation turns both herself and her grandson into criminals. A Native American teenager adopted by a non-Native family breaks the law when he prays with a feather to reconnect with the spirits of his ancestors. And a member of a state-recognized tribe is subject to prosecution merely for possessing a single protected feather....

Effective reform in this area would do three things: First, it would broaden the Morton Policy to include all sincere religious believers who use federally protected feathers in their religious exercise—as both the Constitution and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) require. Second, it would officially promulgate this policy as a formal rule rather than rely on informal guidance, ending decades of legal limbo that has had disastrous consequences for many Native Americans. Third, it would empower Native American tribes to help combat the illegal commercialization of federally protected feathers.

The petition grows out of the settlement of a suit challenging current rules. (See prior related posting.)

Destruction of Native American Burial Site Did Not Violate RFRA

In Slockish v U.S. Federal Highway Administration, (D OR, March 2, 2018), an Oregon federal magistrate judge recommended dismissing a RFRA challenge to the destruction of sacred Native American burial grounds in widening a highway.  Relying on Supreme Court and 9th Circuit precedent, the court held:

As in Lyng and Navajo Nation, plaintiffs contend that the sacred site at issue, which is located on federal land, has been desecrated and destroyed. Yet, as in those cases, plaintiffs have not established that they are being coerced to act contrary to their religious beliefs under the threat of sanctions or that a governmental benefit is being conditioned upon conduct that would violate their religious beliefs. Without these critical elements, plaintiffs cannot establish a substantial burden under the RFRA.

Becket issued a press release announcing the decision.

Hopi's Religious Concerns Give Them Standing To Challenge Snowbowl Water Use

In Hopi Tribe v. Arizona Snowbowl Resort Limited Partnership, (AZ App., Feb. 8, 2018), an Arizona state appeals court has given the Hopi tribe another chance to continue their long-running opposition to the use of recycled waste water to make artificial snow at Arizona's Snowbowl ski resort. (See prior posting).  Reversing the trial court's standing ruling, the appellate court said in part:

At issue is whether the Tribe sufficiently alleged standing to maintain a common law public nuisance claim. For a private party to bring a claim of public nuisance, it must allege both an interference with a right common to the public and a special injury different in kind from that of the public. The parties do not dispute that the Tribe sufficiently alleged that the use of reclaimed wastewater interferes with the public’s right to use and enjoy the Peaks. Because we find the Tribe sufficiently alleged the use of reclaimed wastewater causes its members a special injury, different in kind than that suffered by the general public, by interfering with places of special cultural and religious significance to the Tribe, we reverse the trial court’s dismissal....

Tribes Sue to Stop End of Protection For Yellowstone Grizzly Bears

Last month 17 Native American tribes, clans and individuals filed suit challenging the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's decision to lift protections for grizzly bears in the Yellowstone National Park area.  According to AP:

The Native American plaintiffs argue that trophy hunting for grizzly bears goes against their religious and spiritual beliefs. The lawsuit filed June 30 asks a federal judge to rule that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service must consider the Native Americans' beliefs and consult adequately with them before removing grizzly protections that have been in place since 1975....

Basing a legal challenge of an Endangered Species Act decision on religious beliefs and inadequate tribal consultation has not been tried before, said the plaintiffs' attorney, Jeff Rasmussen.

Environmental Impact Challenge To Dakota Access Pipeline Is Partially Successful

While in March a D.C. federal district court rejected a RFRA challenge by the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe to the Dakota Access Pipeline project (see prior posting), the same court has now held that the Army Corps of Engineers must reconsider portions of its environmental analysis of the project.  In a 91-page opinion in Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, (D DC, June 14, 2017), court held:

Although the Corps substantially complied with NEPA in many areas, the Court agrees that it did not adequately consider the impacts of an oil spill on fishing rights, hunting rights, or environmental justice, or the degree to which the pipeline’s effects are likely to be highly controversial.

To remedy those violations, the Corps will have to reconsider those sections of its environmental analysis upon remand by the Court. Whether Dakota Access must cease pipeline operations during that remand presents a separate question of the appropriate remedy, which will be the subject of further briefing.

Red Green and Blue reports on the decision.

Court Rejects RFRA Challenge To Dakota Access Pipeline

In Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, (D DC, March 7, 2017), the D.C. federal district court denied a preliminary injunction requested by the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe which objects to the presence of oil in the pipeline under Lake Oahe.  It asserted a claim under RFRA that the easement under the lake will cause irreparable harm to its members’ religious exercise. The court held first:

Because of the Plaintiff’s delay in raising this religious-exercise objection and the negative impact of that delay on the Corps and Dakota Access, the Court concludes that the requested preliminary-injunctive relief is barred by laches.

Moving to the merits, the court also concluded that the Tribe has failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success, saying in part:

The government action here — i.e., granting the easement to Dakota Access and thereby enabling the flow of oil beneath Lake Oahe — does not impose a sanction on the Tribe’s members for exercising their religious beliefs, nor does it pressure them to choose between religious exercise and the receipt of government benefits. Cheyenne River argues that whether it has been subjected to such sanction or pressure is irrelevant ... and contends instead that it is sufficient for purposes of showing substantial burden that the effect of the government’s action is to prevent the Tribe’s members from performing required religious sacraments at Lake Oahe.... That argument, however, is directly at odds with Supreme Court precedent.

The Hill reports on the decision.