Lyng
v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association
(1988) and the U.S. Supreme Court
The United States Federal government wanted to construct access roads through National Forest Service Lands during the 1980s. Three California tribes, the Yurok, Karok, and Tolowa, attempted to block a six-mile forest service road through what is the Six Rivers National Forest or what the Indians call their High Country, a sacred area used for vision questing, gathering of medicine roots and other ceremonial purposes. Prior to the proposed construction, the Indians had undisturbed access and use of the area. An impressive number of plaintiffs joined the tribes in the litigation, including the Sierra Club, Wilderness Society, California Trout, Redwood Audubon Society, and the State of California, among others, against the United States government's proposal.
Prior to this case, most all religious freedom cases (including American Indian religious freedom) uaranteed under the First Amendment of the Constitution states that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . .i.e., - establishment clause, the government shall not endorse or promote a religion, and free exercise clause, - the government shall not interfere with the free expression of religious belief.
And had to pass the Sherbert Test (Sherbert v. Verner 1963), i.e., the plaintiff had to demonstrate that, 1. he/she (individual) was infringed upon and burdened by the actions of the government, and 2. he/she was a member of a shared/sincere religious group; and once demonstrated, the state must then 3. prove that they had a compelling interest to continue their actions (outweighed interests of individual)
All the lower courts, including the Federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (July 1986), upheld the religious freedom claims of the tribes.
But overturning the lower courts decisions and writing for the majority, Supreme
Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor
asserted that the construction of the public road outweighed the rights of
the specific individual religious infringement. Thus the government, as the ultimate landowner, should take precedent
over the claims of religious infringements of the individual.
And in addition, the court argued that today there are "too many so-called religions and the court needs to stay out of the business of defining which religions are sincere religions. Hence forth, religious freedom cases should be deferred to and conducted as legislative matters and not judicial issue, i.e., the courts are no longer in the business of protecting religious freedom of the majority or minority. But such matters should be left to the will of the majority, i.e., elected congressional members, to protect the expressions of the minority.
Thus the Sherbert Test would no longer be applicable as a safeguard for
protecting religious freedoms of anyone. And in the larger context, the ruling compromised and undermines, 1. the
treaty relations between the federal government and the tribes as sovereign
entities and the reserved
rights doctrine
which assures the all rights, including religious rights, to be held by the
tribes unless explicitly given up; and 2. the trust relationship"
of the federal government to look after the interests of their wards, i.e., the Indians.
return to Contact Schedule
return to American Indian Religious Freedom Act