Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association

485 U.S. 439 (1988)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

D, the United States Forest Service, upgraded 49 miles of previously unpaved roads on federal land. To complete this project it must build a 6-mile paved segment through a section of the Six Rivers National Forest. That section of the forest is situated between two other portions of the road that are already complete. D issued a draft environmental impact statement that discussed proposals for upgrading an existing unpaved road. The Hoopa Valley Indian reservation adjoins the Six Rivers National Forest, and the area under consideration has historically been used for religious purposes by Yurok, Karok, and Tolowa Indians. Specific sites are used for certain rituals, and 'successful use of the [area] is dependent upon and facilitated by certain qualities of the physical environment, the most important of which are privacy, silence, and an undisturbed natural setting.' Constructing the road 'would cause serious and irreparable damage to the sacred areas which are an integral and necessary part of the belief systems and lifeway of Northwest California Indian peoples.' D decided to build but also accommodating Ps as much as possible. D also adopted a management plan allowing for the harvesting of timber in this area of the forest. The management plan provided for one-half mile protective zones around all the religious sites identified. After exhausting their administrative remedies, Ps challenged both the road-building and timber-harvesting decisions. Ps claimed a violation, in part, of the Free Exercise Clause. The District Court issues a permanent injunction after finding that both actions would violate the Free Exercise Clause because they 'would seriously damage the salient visual, aural, and environmental qualities of the high country.' With appeals pending, Congress enacted the California Wilderness Act of 1984. Under that statute, much of the property was now designated a wilderness area, which means that commercial activities such as timber harvesting are forbidden. The statute exempts a narrow strip of land, coinciding with the D's proposed route from the wilderness designation in order to complete the road. The court affirmed the trial court. D appealed.