Lying v. Northwest Indian CPA
| Lying, Petitioner v. Northwest Indian CPA, Respondent | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued November 30, 1987 Decided April 19, 1988 | |
| Full case name | Lying 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 |
Lying v. Northwest Indian CPA was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States over a dispute about the range of the First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion. [1] 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.[2]
Background
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. [1]. A study conducted by the Forest Service reported that harvesting the Chimney Rock area would irreversibly damage grounds that had been used by Native Americans in the past to perform religious rituals. After the Forest Service decided to construct a road, the Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association took action against Secretary of Agriculture Richard Lying.[3]
The choice was made after considering other alternatives, as the area had been historically used by Native Americans for their religious rituals. These ceremonies required privacy, silence, and an undisturbed natural setting. [4] 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.[2]
The rituals performed on the 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. .[3]
Ruling
In a 5-to-3 decision, the Court held that the Forest Service was free to harvest the lands.[1] 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 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.[2]
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. [1]
See Also
Notes
- ^ a b c d "Lying v. Northwest Indian CPA (1988)". about.com. Retrieved 2011-03-31.
- ^ a b c "Lying v. Northwest Indian CPA". oyez.org. Retrieved 2011-03-31.
- ^ a b "Lying v. Northwest Indian CPA". law.cornell.edu. Retrieved 2011-03-31.
- ^ "Lying v. Northwest Indian CPA ". religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu. Retrieved 2011-03-31.