Student Note on the Arizona Snowbowl Case

Here is “Making Snow in the Desert: Defining a Substantial Burden under RFRA,” published in the Ecology Law Quarterly. An excerpt:

Judge Fletcher’s opinion in Navajo Nation reflected a determined effort to
reconcile the statutory provisions of RFRA with the Supreme Court’s
ethnocentric decision in Lyng. Unfortunately, as the en banc panel concluded,
RFRA was not intended to remedy the disparate treatment of sacred site claims
in free exercise doctrine and thus, it does not provide any more protection for
these claims than the Free Exercise Clause. Both of the Ninth Circuit’s
decisions, however, may ultimately lead to a more equitable framework for
analyzing free exercise challenges.

Judge Fletcher’s opinion in Navajo Nation reflected a determined effort to reconcile the statutory provisions of RFRA with the Supreme Court’s ethnocentric decision in Lyng. Unfortunately, as the en banc panel concluded, RFRA was not intended to remedy the disparate treatment of sacred site claims in free exercise doctrine and thus, it does not provide any more protection for these claims than the Free Exercise Clause. Both of the Ninth Circuit’s decisions, however, may ultimately lead to a more equitable framework for analyzing free exercise challenges.

Arizona Snowbowl Case Cert Denial–Media Coverage

As collected at How Appealing:

“Tribes lose Snowbowl battle; High court refuses to hear case on wastewater for snowmaking”: The Arizona Republic today contains an article that begins, “Would artificial snow made from purified wastewater defile a mountain Native Americans hold sacred? The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday refused to consider that question, essentially ending a five-year court battle over the future of Arizona Snowbowl on Flagstaff’s San Francisco Peaks.”

Today’s edition of The Arizona Daily Sun contains articles headlined “Snowmaking wins legal OK; The U.S. Supreme Court declines to hear a final appeal by tribes, clearing the way for Arizona Snowbowl to make snow with reclaimed wastewater“; “What next for Snowbowl? Construction could start soon; But a tribal attorney says his clients are weighing further legal action and asking federal officials to revoke the construction permit“; “Snowbowl: When is religious belief ‘substantially burdened?’“; “Snowbowl: City contract locked in“; and “Snowbowl: Snowplay tourists mostly from Phoenix.”

And The Associated Press reports that “Court steers clear of Ariz. ski resort dispute.”

Cert Denied in Arizona Snowbowl Case

The Supreme Court denied cert in the Arizona Snowbowl case today, link via SCOTUSblog.  Our materials on the case are posted here.

Arizona Snowbowl Cert Petition on Deck This Week

Navajo Nation v. United States Forest Service is set for this week’s conference. From SCOTUSblog:

Docket: 08-846
Title: Navajo Nation, et al. v. United States Forest Service, et al.
Issue: Whether a governmental action cannot constitute a “substantial burden” under RFRA unless it forces individuals to choose between following the tenets of their religion and receiving a governmental benefit or coerces them by threatening civil or criminal sanctions to act contrary to their religious beliefs.

[Akin Gump and Howe and Russell represent the petitioners]

Final Filing in Arizona Snowbowl Cert Petition

Here is the Navajo Nation’s reply brief — Navajo Reply Brief

The Supreme Court will decide whether or not to grant the petition on June 4 (see docket).

Commentary on the Status of the Arizona Snowbowl Cert Petition

OK, so now the United States has come out in opposition to the Navajo Nation’s cert petition in the Snowbowl case. A few comments:

1. Too bad any effort to persuade the Obama Administration to change course in this case failed. We understand that with very, very new SG Kagan on board there was likely little chance to make that happen, but it’s still disappointing. What would be really disappointing is if the government is unwilling to consider settlement and dismissal under Rule 56 if the Court does grant cert, where the government has time to consider its position.

2. We think it’s fairly well established that the government was more likely wrong than not that there is no split in authority under the “substantial burden” test. The en banc opinion in the Ninth Circuit was a big stretch, and went way beyond the other circuits that have confronted the question. The question now is whether the Supreme Court thinks this is the right vehicle to decide the question. There may be one decent reason to think it is not — these tribes have already litigated the Snowbowl to the Supreme Court once before in Wilson v. Block, 708 F.2d 735, and the Court denied cert back then.

But of course, that doesn’t really matter if the Court wants this one. And there’s no reason to think it doesn’t. How many times has the Court used Indian law and Indian religions as a battleground for its religious freedom doctrines? Bowen, Lyng, Smith I, Smith II….

Results of Third Turtle Talk Poll — 67% See Supreme Court Denying Cert in the Snowbowl Case

Most voters do not see the Supreme Court granting cert in Navajo Nation v. USFS — 67 percent. About 26 percent think the Court will grant cert. Seven percent see a settlement before the Court reaches an outcome.

Amar and Brownstein on the Navajo Nation v. USFS Case

Wow! This may be the first time anyone on Findlaw has written anything substantive on Indian law. This might actually contribute to raising the profile of the case a bit for the SCT.

From Findlaw (via How Appealing and Con Law Prof Blog):

By VIKRAM DAVID AMAR AND ALAN BROWNSTEIN

The U.S. Supreme Court will decide in the coming weeks whether to take up an important and interesting case from the U.S Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit involving religious liberties and the seminal federal statute – the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) – designed to safeguard them. In this column, we will discuss the issues the case raises; the reasons why the Ninth Circuit’s resolution of these issues, while understandable, might not do justice to the complex and competing interests involved; and the problems that both the Supreme Court and lower courts face when trying to implement this well-meaning but imperfectly-drafted Congressional statute.

Continue reading

Commentary on Snowbowl Case

From Truthout:

Ninth Circuit rules effluent does not defile sacred space. Forest Service argued skiing on treated sewage “a compelling government interest.”

The San Francisco Peaks of Northern Arizona “are sacred to at least 13 formally recognized Indian tribes … and this religious significance is of centuries duration.”(1) In February 2005, the US Forest Service issued a Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision approving a proposal to make artificial snow using treated sewage effluent at the Snowbowl Resort located on Humphrey’s Peak, the highest and – to the tribes – most holy of the San Francisco Peaks. That decision was appealed by the Navajo Nation, the Hopi Tribe, the Havasupai Tribe, the Hualapai Tribe, the Yavapai-Apache Nation and the White Mountain Apache Nation. The Circuit Court ruled for the Forest Service. In February 2007, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court unanimously overturned the lower court’s decision. On Friday, August 8, 2008, the en banc majority of the Ninth Circuit Court ruled that “using treated sewage effluent to make artificial snow on the most sacred mountain of southwestern Indian tribes does not violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (‘RFRA’). It also holds that a supposed pleading mistake prevents the tribes from arguing under the National Environmental Act (‘NEPA’) that the Forest Service failed to consider the likelihood that children and others would ingest snow made from the effluent.”(2)

On August 18, Leslie Thatcher, of Truthout, spoke with the Navajo Nation’s lead attorney in the case, Howard Shanker, who is also running in the Democratic primary for Arizona Congressional District One, the seat currently held by retiring Representative Rick Renzi (R-Arizona), presently under indictment for extortion, wire fraud, money laundering, and other charges related to an Arizona land deal.

Leslie Thatcher, for Truthout: Howard, what do you consider the most important issues in the Snowbowl case to be?

The San Francisco Peaks are federal land and the government has documented for years that the Peaks – especially Humphreys where Snowbowl is located – are sacred to local tribes. Nonetheless, the Feds issued a special use permit to operate a ski resort there that was unsuccessfully challenged in the 1970’s. Most recently, the Forest Service ruled that the resort could pipe up to 1.5 million gallons of treated sewage effluent to the resort for snowmaking in winters when natural snowfall is inadequate. The tribes have appealed that ruling.

The central issue that’s going on and that’s really important is that Native tribes have no First Amendment rights when it comes to government land-use decisions. And the federal government holds thousands of acres of land across the country that the tribes hold sacred. Up until we used the Religious Freedom Restoration Act [RFRA] successfully, there was no way for the tribes to challenge federal use of sacred lands. Now, they have to show there is a compelling government interest and that they are using the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling government interest when government action substantially burdens the exercise of religion.

The current ruling is that there is no substantial burden on the exercise of religion. The judges have said there is no objective evidence of impact on religious belief and practice.

Short of producing God in the courtroom, there’s no way to produce “objective” evidence. A Navajo elder testified that putting effluent on the mountain would be like raping his mother. Other testimonies – the sincerity of which were never challenged – described the disruptions to the spiritual world and contamination of the ritual purity of materials essential to Native ceremonies that spraying the effluent would result in.

The en banc court adopted a very restrictive reading of “Sherbet and Yoder” that does not seem to speak to the statute. In any event, spraying the Peaks can certainly be interpreted as a form of punishment or coercion.

The tribes appealed the Forest Service decision under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) rather than the First Amendment to the US Constitution. Can you explain how the RFRA differs from the First Amendment and why Congress passed the act?

In “Smith,” the Supreme Court said laws of general application can’t constitute a general burden under the Constitution. So then, Congress passed RFRA to say that even though a law may be of general applicability, if it results in a substantial burden to the exercise of religion, you have to do this balancing of interests. Then in 2003, Congress passed the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act [RLUIPA] amending and broadening RFRA’s definition of “exercise of religion.”

The Ninth Circuit Court dissent, written by Judge Fletcher, joined by Judges Pregerson and Fisher, notes that “Under our prior case law, a ‘substantial burden’ on the ‘exercise of religion’ exists where government action prevents an individual ‘from engaging in [religious] conduct or having a religious experience’ and the interference is ‘more than an inconvenience.'” Can you explain how spraying up to 1.5 million gallons of effluent a day on the sacred mountains burdens the various plaintiff tribes’ exercise of religion?

For the Hopi, the Mountain is where the Katsina live; that’s their only sacred mountain; the Katsina are responsible for making the moisture that is essential to Hopi life. It was on Mt. Humphreys that the Hopi had their revelation and they return there for pilgrimages.

For the Navajo, it’s one of four sacred mountains, but it is essential to all blessing way ceremonies which depend on ritually pure materials gathered from the mountain.

The tribes see the Peaks as a single living entity; this is a living being. You can’t poison just one part of it without poisoning the whole.

One man testified that current ski runs are like a scar on the body, something the body can live with, but that putting effluent on the Peaks is like a toxic injection.

For the Apache, the mountain is where souls go after death; the transfer station of souls to Heaven and the spraying will interfere with that operation.

For both the Hualapai and the Navajo, the mountain is their Garden of Eden, where life started.

The government has never questioned the specific special holiness of these mountains to the Native tribes. In fact, in the very beginning, the National Historic Preservation Act uses the Peaks as an example of a sacred space.

Commentary on Arizona Snowbowl Case

From NewsPirates:

Native Americans have traditionally come up short, getting the s**** end of the stick from the Federal government for several hundred years. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has given it to them again, this time literally.

The court ruled that using treated wastewater on the San Francisco Peaks in Arizona to make artificial snow does not violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and overturned a previous ruling that would have protected the mountain that is sacred to at least 13 Indian tribes.

These dunderheads wrote this in the majority: “The only effect of the proposed upgrades is on the Plaintiffs’ subjective, emotional religious experience.”

Okay so let’s start spraying treated wastewater on the National Cathedral to clean it! Maybe we should mandate that those upscale ski resorts in Aspen should use refined sewage to make their snow so that the rich can zip down the trails! Maybe the next time the Pope shows up he can get out a hose and use some treated effluent, blessed as it comes out of the nozzle, to wet down the adoring throng!

But the real issue is religious freedom. The site has been sacred to Native Americans not for just a few hundred years but for a few thousand. The judges ruling that the tribe “cannot dictate the decisions that government makes in managing ‘what is, after all, its land.’, is a bull. It was the Indians land long before the government ever showed up to commit our own little genocide.

The tribes will appeal, probably to the U.S. Supreme Court, but considering the make up of that what is now a less than august body, their chances are not very good and you know what will continue to be sprayed on the San Francisco Peaks.