descrybe logo
You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Bear Lodge Multiple Use Association, a Wyoming Non-Profit Corporation Andy Petefish, Doing Business as Tower Guides Kenneth D. Allen Gary W. Anderson Gregory Hauber Wes Bush v. Bruce Babbitt, in His Official Capacity as United States Department of the Interior Secretary Roger G. Kennedy, in His Official Capacity as Director of the National Park Service John E. Cook, in His Official Capacity as Rocky Mountain Regional Director, National Park Service Deborah O. Liggett, in Her Official Capacity as Superintendent of Devil's Tower National Monument National Park Service, Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Romanus Bear Stops Burdell Blue Arm Arvol Looking Horse Steven Vance, Defendants-Intervenors--Appellees, Group of Concerned Scholars Medicine Wheel Coalition on Sacred Sites of North America, Northern Arapaho Tribe, Sissetonwahpeton Sioux Tribe, Upper Sioux Indian Community National Congress of American Indians the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty Bureau of Catholic Indian

Citation: 175 F.3d 814Docket: 98-8021

Court: Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; April 26, 1999; Federal Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

The case involves a challenge by a group of climbers against the National Park Service's (NPS) Final Climbing Management Plan (FCMP) for Devils Tower National Monument, a site of cultural and spiritual significance to several Native American tribes. The FCMP, approved by the Secretary of the Interior, requests climbers to voluntarily refrain from climbing in June to accommodate traditional ceremonies. The climbers claimed that the FCMP violated the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The district court upheld the FCMP, finding it constitutionally sound and appropriately balancing interests. On appeal, the court determined that the climbers lacked standing to sue, as they failed to demonstrate any injury in fact resulting from the FCMP. The court referenced the standing requirements established in *Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife*, noting that the climbers' lack of personal injury precluded jurisdiction. The court did not address the climbers' religious argument or the Secretary's authority, as the issue of standing was dispositive. Statutes such as the American Indian Religious Freedom Act support the protection of sacred sites, reinforcing the FCMP's purpose. The judgment of the lower court was affirmed, maintaining the voluntary climbing restrictions while emphasizing the significance of standing in constitutional litigation.

Legal Issues Addressed

Administrative Procedure Act and Agency Discretion

Application: Had standing been established, the court would have evaluated whether the Secretary of the Interior acted within his discretion under the Administrative Procedure Act in approving the FCMP.

Reasoning: The current legal review does not involve a summary judgment favoring the Secretary; if standing were not an issue, the court would assess whether the Secretary acted within his discretion under the Administrative Procedure Act.

Establishment Clause and Voluntary Climbing Restrictions

Application: The court upheld the National Park Service's Final Climbing Management Plan, which includes voluntary climbing restrictions in June to accommodate Native American spiritual practices, as compliant with the Establishment Clause.

Reasoning: However, the district court upheld the FCMP, ruling that it appropriately balanced interests and adhered to constitutional standards.

Federal Protection of Sacred Sites

Application: The court recognized the government's obligation under various statutes to protect sacred sites and accommodate traditional Indian religious practices, supporting the rationale for the FCMP.

Reasoning: The American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 established a framework for protecting sacred sites and worship practices.

Standing to Sue and Injury in Fact

Application: The appellate court found that the climbers lacked standing to challenge the FCMP because they did not demonstrate a concrete injury resulting from the Plan's voluntary restrictions.

Reasoning: The appellate court noted a lack of standing for the Climbers to sue, as they did not demonstrate any injury.