American Indian Religious Freedom Litigation: Promise and Perils

Abstract

* Professor of Religious Studies, University of California, Santa Barbara. The author wishes to thank Professors Robert N. Clinton, College of Law, University of Iowa; Ralph W. Johnson, School of Law, University of Washington; William K. Powers, Department of Anthropology, Rutgers University; and Mr. Walter R. Echo-Hawk, Native American Rights Fund, for their comments on an earlier version of this paper. 1. Wilson v. Block, 708 F.2d 735 (D.C. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 104 S. Ct. 371 (1983). Three suits were combined in Wilson: Hopi Indian Tribe v. Block, Navajo Medicine Men's Assn. v. Block, and Wilson. The Wilsons were non-Indian owners of land in the vicinity of the San Francisco Peaks. They appealed not to the free exercise clause but to federal environmental protection and similar laws. 2. Id. at 740, note 2. In Hopi belief, the Kachinas are spirit beings who are intermediaries between people and the creator. They live among the tribe for half of each year and in the San Franciso Peaks for the other half. They are responsible for bringing rain, snow, sun, health, happiness, and all of the good things of life to the people. Hence, their well-being is believed to be crucial to tribal well-being. 3. For example, in the Hopi case, not only was there a considerable investment of money and time, but it also appears that the Hopi loss in that case may have played a role in the failure of the chairman of the tribal council to win reelection. (Conversation with the former tribal chairman, Abbott Sekaquaptewa, at Second Mesa, Arizona, March 24, 1984.)