Prof Who Criticized Native American Grave Repatriation Laws Can Move Ahead with Retaliation Suit

In Weiss v. Perez, (ND CA, Oct. 19, 2022), a California federal district court allowed a tenured professor of physical anthropology at San Jose State University to move ahead against most of the defendants she named in a lawsuit alleging that the University has retaliated her against because of her opposition to repatriation of Native American remains.  In a book that Prof. Elizabeth Weiss co-authored that was published in 2020, she argued that the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act and the California Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act "undermine objective scientific inquiry and violate the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution by favoring religion over science." She expressed similar views in an op-ed and on Twitter.  Weiss claims that because of her speaking on this issue, the University has interfered with her research and limited her professional activities in a number of ways that have reduced her responsibilities and damaged her professional reputation. The Art Newspaper reports on the decision.

Relocation Of Native American Graves Can Proceed

In Asher v. Clay County Board of Education, (ED KY, Feb. 11, 2022), a Kentucky federal district court refused to enjoin a school district from relocating graves from cemetery land which it had purchased. The school board followed procedures in Kentucky law to obtain permission for the relocation.  Plaintiffs claim the the cemetery contains graves of members of the White Top Band of Native Indians.  The court held that the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act does not apply because the cemetery is not on federal or tribal lands. The court rejected plaintiffs' 1st Amendment free exercise claim, saying in part:

Plaintiffs argue that the Defendants’ actions would prevent religious fulfilment.... But like the respondents in Lyng [v. Nw. Indian Cemetery Protective Ass’n], Plaintiffs are not being coerced into violating their religious beliefs, nor are they being penalized because of their religious or traditional beliefs or practices. Instead, they seek to overturn the lawful process undertaken by the BOE to move the graves in the Hoskins Cemetery so that Plaintiffs can continue to practice their traditional and religious beliefs.... This is not “free exercise” of religion protected by the First Amendment. Rather, it amounts to Plaintiffs seeking to exact a benefit from the local government and to “divest the [BOE] of its right to use what is, after all, its land.”

Indian Tribe Sues Over Exclusion From Committee Dealing With Ancestors' Remains

A lawsuit was filed yesterday in a Texas federal district court by a non-federally recognized Indian tribe against Texas officials involved in redevelopment of the Alamo complex complaining about the tribe's exclusion from a committee dealing with human remains found at the site. Plaintiffs say their ancestors are among those buried there, and some of the tribes allowed on the committee are responsible for the deaths of those buried in the cemetery.

The complaint (full text) in Tap Pilam Coahuiltecan Nation v. Alamo Trust, Inc., (WD TX, filed 9/10/2019), contends that requirements of the San Antonio's zoning laws that refer to the National Historic Preservation Act are not being followed in dealing with a cemetery on the redevelopment site. Instead authorities are applying the Native American Grave Protection Act which excludes non-recognized tribes. The complaint alleges in part:

Defendants are ignoring the City of San Antonio’s Unified Development Code and arbitrarily applying NAGPRA for the purpose of excluding the Plaintiffs and other lineal descendants from participation. The reason for this is obvious, the Defendants are planning to conduct their archaeological activities in a manner that violates local, state and federal laws in an attempt to reduce cost and time.

Plaintiffs also complain that they were denied use of the Alamo Chapel for their annual Sunrise Memorial Ceremony. Courthouse News Service reports on the lawsuit.

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.

Suit Between Indian Tribes Challenges Building Site For History Center

Non Doc reported yesterday on a federal court lawsuit filed in May by the Caddo Nation against the Wichita and Affiliated Tribes challenging the construction of a History Center by the Wichitas in western Oklahoma on land held jointly by the Wichita Tribe, Caddo Nation and Delaware Tribe.  A Caddo press release has further background.  The History Center is being built on a 71-acre parcel below a hill on which the Riverside Indian School is located.  The boarding school has been in operation since 1872 and was attended by Caddo students, as well as students from other tribes.  Students who died at the school were buried near it.  The Wichita say that all the graves are by the school at the top of the hill, but in the lawsuit members of the Caddo Nation contend that there are also graves at the site of the History Center below. According to Non Doc:

The Caddo filed a lawsuit May 25 seeking to halt construction for two weeks while the tribe conducted archeological work with ground-penetrating radar, or GPR, which can identify potential artifacts or features without the need to disturb a site by digging.

A U.S. District Court judge ordered a temporary stop to work at the site, one and a-half miles north of Anadarko, pending a hearing. The order was lifted May 31, and the Wichita resumed work. The Caddo then filed an appeal on June 7 to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court in Denver. No hearing date has been set at this time.

Cert Petition Filed In Family Dispute Over Repatriation of Athlete Jim Thorpe's Remains To Tribal Cemetery

Yesterday a petition for certiorari (full text) was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in Sac and Fox Nation of Oklahoma v. Borough of Jim Thorpe.  In the case, the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2014 decision (full text) held that despite its literal language, Congress did not intend the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) to apply to a dispute between the sons of famous Native American Athlete Jim Thorpe who died in 1953 and the Pennsylvania town that renamed itself after Thorpe in an agreement with Thorpe's widow (his third wife) to have his remains buried there. Some of Thorpe's children from prior marriages have insisted that his remains be moved to Sac and Fox tribal land in Oklahoma. Wall Street Journal's Law Blog reports on the cert. petition.