Living Law,
Living LandSupport land rights

Court case

Navajo Nation v. U.S. Forest Service

The en banc Ninth Circuit held that artificial snow from recycled wastewater on a mountain sacred to tribes was not a RFRA 'substantial burden'.

Citation
535 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc), cert. denied (2009)
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Cir. (en banc)
Year
2008
Nations
Navajo Nation, Hopi Tribe, Hualapai Tribe, Havasupai Tribe, White Mountain Apache Nation, Yavapai-Apache Nation and others
Treaty at issue
none
Effect on land rights
eroded

What happened

Several Indian tribes and their members consider a mountain peak in northern Arizona sacred in their religion. A ski area covers approximately one percent of that mountain. In 2002, the ski area submitted a proposal to the Forest Service to upgrade its operations, including a request to make artificial snow from recycled wastewater. The ski area had suffered highly variable snowfall for several years, with operating losses that threatened its operation.

The plaintiffs sued under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and other laws. They said that using snow made from recycled wastewater, which contains 0.0001% human waste, would desecrate the entire mountain and devalue their religious exercises. The district court ruled for the government. A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit reversed, and the court then took the case en banc to clarify its interpretation of "substantial burden" under RFRA.

The en banc court ruled for the government. It held that where "there is no showing the government has coerced the Plaintiffs to act contrary to their religious beliefs under the threat of sanctions," or conditioned a benefit on conduct that would violate their beliefs, there is no "substantial burden." Otherwise, the court wrote, "each citizen would hold an individual veto" over government action on its own land. Judge William Fletcher dissented, joined by Judges Pregerson and Fisher.

In Apache Stronghold v. United States (2024), a majority of the en banc court overruled Navajo Nation's narrow definition of "substantial burden" under RFRA, while a different majority held the Lyng-based claim failed.

Good to know. The mountain is not named here, following this site's practice on sacred sites.

Summarized with AI assistance from 4 sources and checked against their words; not yet reviewed by historians or by the nations. Report an error

What the sources say, and how this was checked

Well supported by the sources below.

  1. there is no showing the government has coerced the Plaintiffs to act contrary to their religious beliefs under the threat of sanctionsNavajo Nation v. United States Forest Service, 535 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (Harvard Caselaw Access Project)
  2. Each citizen would hold an individual veto to prohibit the government actionNavajo Nation v. United States Forest Service, 535 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (Harvard Caselaw Access Project)
  3. recycled wastewater, which contains 0.0001% human waste, to make artificial snowNavajo Nation v. United States Forest Service, 535 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (Harvard Caselaw Access Project)
  4. A majority of the en banc court therefore overruled the narrow definition of substantial burden under RFRA in Navajo Nation v. U.S. Forest ServiceApache Stronghold v. United States, No. 21-15295 (9th Cir. en banc, amended May 14, 2024)

Research notes. I do not name the mountain, following our rule on sacred sites. The old text said the court 'relied on Lyng'; the opinion's reasoning rests on RFRA's reference to Supreme Court free-exercise precedent, which is described here without that gloss. The 2009 denial of certiorari in our data was not verified, so it is not stated. The Supreme Court is not asked to review the facts of the dispute.

Who is doing the work

This history belongs to living nations. Start with them:

Working with these nations

Native legal and land defense, nationally

Gifts go straight to each organization; this atlas takes nothing. Listing is not endorsement: how organizations are listed.

Connections

Links marked “suggested” were matched automatically by name or date and have not yet been reviewed by a person.

Nations named 4

Doctrine applied 2

Policy era 1

Sources

  1. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navajo_Nation_v._U.S._Forest_Servicepointer
The record’s fields
Holding
Using reclaimed wastewater for snowmaking on the San Francisco Peaks was not a 'substantial burden' under RFRA because the statute reaches only coercion or choice between religious practice and a benefit. Its narrow definition of 'substantial burden' was overruled by the en banc Ninth Circuit in Apache Stronghold v. United States (2024).
Kind
Court case
Confidence
High

Correct this record