Lying v. Northwest Indian CPA
| Lyng, Petitioner v. Northwest Indian CPA, Respondent | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued November 30, 1987 Decided April 19, 1988 | |
| Full case name | Lyng v. Northwest Indian CPA |
| Docket no. | 88-515 |
| Holding | |
| Though the government's actions would have severe adverse effects on the Indians' practice of their religion, those effects were only incidental and did not attempt to coerce Native Americans to act in violation of their beliefs. The Court therefore held that the Forest Service was free to harvest the lands. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | O'Connor, joined by Rehnquist, White, Stevens, and Scalia |
| Dissent | Brennan, joined by Marshall, and Blackmun |
Lyng v. Northwest Indian CPA was a decision by the case Supreme Court of the United States over a dispute about the scope of the First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion. It held that the United States Forest Service was free to harvest the lands by building a paved roadway that would cut through the Chimney Rock area of the Six Rivers National Forest. The Court of Appeals approved a permanent injunction
History
The United States Forest Service wanted to build a six-mile connection between two roads and chose the Chimney Rock area of Six Rivers National Forest as the location. It was also considering timber harvesting in the area. (http://atheism.about.com/library/decisions/religion/bl_l_LyngNICPA.htm). A study commissioned by the Forest Service reported that harvesting the Chimney Rock area would irreparably damage grounds that had historically been used by Native Americans to conduct religious rituals. After the Forest Service decided to construct a road, the Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association took action against Secretary of Agriculture Richard Lyng They only made this choice after considering other alternatives because the area had been historically used by Native Americans for their religious rituals. These ceremonies required privacy, silence, and an undisturbed natural setting. A primary characteristic of Native American religion is the belief in sacred lands: land itself is regarded as sacred, living, and having significant spiritual qualities. (http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1987/1987_86_1013) The rituals performed on their holy sites are regarded as being particularly holy for the purpose of honoring the land itself, of gaining "medicine" or spiritual power. Because the Forest Service intended to put a road through here, Native Americans filed suit claiming that it would constitute an impermissible burden on their freedom of religious exercise.
Ruling
No. In a 5-to-3 decision, the Court held that the Forest Service was free to harvest the lands. Though the government's actions would have severe adverse effects on the Indians' practice oftheir religion, those effects were only incidental and did not constitute an attempt to coerce Native Americans to act in violation of their beliefs. The Court reasoned that government could not operate "if it were required to satisfy every citizen's religious needs and desires," and that the First Amendment did not give any one group veto power over public programs that did not actually prohibit the free exercise of religion.
Significance
This decision held that the benefits of the road to society in general outweighed the preferences of the Native Americans. Moreover, the Supreme Court argued that the great diversity of religions in the United States would prevent the government from ever doing anything if every public program first had to be cleared by every religious group that might be affected.
This has been part of a recent court trend giving much less consideration to Indian rights and needs. Lately their desires, particularly religious needs, have had to give way to larger economic and political goals - not an unusual situation in American history.
See Also
American-Indian Religious Freedom Act