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.

Robson Bonnichsen C. Loring Brace George W. Gill C. Vance Haynes, Jr. Richard L. Jantz Douglas W. Owsley Dennis J. Stanford D. Gentry Steele v. United States of America United States Army United States Army Corps of Engineers David A. Fastabend Francis P. McManamon Edward J. Kertis Thomas E. White Gale A. Norton Craig Manson Robert B. Flowers National Park Service United States Department of the Interior, Nez Perce Tribe of Idaho Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation Confederated Tribes & Bands of the Yakama Indian Nation Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation Society for American Archaeology National Congress of American Indians, Wanapum Band, Defendants-Intervenors. Robson Bonnichsen C. Loring Brace George W. Gill C. Vance Haynes, Jr. Richard L. Jantz Douglas W. Owsley Dennis J. Stanford D. Gentry Steele v. United States of America United States Army United States Army Corps of Engineers David A. Fastabend Francis P. McManamon Edward J. Kertis Thomas E. White Gale A. Norton Craig M

Citations: 367 F.3d 864; 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 7478Docket: 02-35994

Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; April 19, 2004; Federal Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

This case involves the legal determination of the classification and disposition of ancient human remains known as Kennewick Man, discovered on federal land. The plaintiffs, primarily scientists, sought the right to study the remains under the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA), while various Native American tribes claimed the remains under the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), seeking repatriation for burial. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the district court's decision, which vacated the government's classification of the remains as Native American under NAGPRA and ruled in favor of continued scientific study. The court held that NAGPRA was inapplicable, as the remains lacked a significant connection to any currently recognized tribe, people, or culture. The ruling emphasized the importance of a presently existing relationship for remains to be classified as Native American, adhering to the clear statutory language. Additionally, the court rejected the Secretary's interpretation under Chevron deference due to its inconsistency with the statute's plain language. The decision allowed the plaintiffs to proceed with their studies under ARPA, affirming the district court's findings against the Tribal Claimants' jurisdictional and standing challenges.

Legal Issues Addressed

Administrative Procedure Act (APA) Standards

Application: The court found the Secretary's decision to classify Kennewick Man's remains as Native American under NAGPRA to be arbitrary and capricious because it lacked substantial factual support.

Reasoning: The Secretary's determination that Kennewick Man's remains are Native American under NAGPRA is deemed arbitrary and capricious due to a lack of substantial factual support.

Chevron Deference and Statutory Interpretation

Application: The court rejected the Secretary's interpretation of the term 'Native American' under NAGPRA, emphasizing the clear and unambiguous statutory language, which does not warrant Chevron deference.

Reasoning: The Secretary's interpretation of NAGPRA conflates two inquiries: the initial determination of whether remains are Native American and the subsequent identification of which tribe or descendants are most closely related.

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) Definition of Native American

Application: The court concluded that Kennewick Man's remains are not classified as Native American under NAGPRA due to the lack of a significant connection to a presently existing tribe, people, or culture.

Reasoning: The court affirms that human remains must have a significant relationship to a presently existing tribe to qualify as Native American under NAGPRA.

Standing and Jurisdiction under NAGPRA

Application: The court ruled that Plaintiffs have standing under NAGPRA, as the statute's enforcement section broadly grants jurisdiction over alleged violations to 'any person,' not limited to American Indians or tribes.

Reasoning: NAGPRA's enforcement section grants jurisdiction over any alleged violation to 'any person,' which is interpreted broadly, negating the prudential zone of interests test.