Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association

Supreme Court of the United States · 1988 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawFree Exercise ClauseReligious LibertyFederal Land UseFree Exercise Clausepublic landfederal land managementreligious burden

Facts

The Forest Service planned to complete a 6-mile paved segment of the Gasquet-Orleans road through the Chimney Rock area of the Six Rivers National Forest and also adopted a management plan allowing significant timber harvesting in that area. A study commissioned by the Forest Service found the area historically used by Yurok, Karok, and Tolowa Indians to be integral to their religious practices and concluded that a road would cause serious and irreparable damage to sacred areas. The Forest Service nonetheless chose a route intended to avoid archeological sites and to be as far as possible from contemporary spiritual sites, and it adopted protective zones around identified religious sites. Respondents challenged the road-building and timber-harvesting decisions, claiming among other things that they violated the Free Exercise Clause.

Issue

Does the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause prohibit the federal government from permitting timber harvesting in, or constructing a road through, publicly owned national forest land that has traditionally been used by American Indians for religious purposes, where the government action will seriously interfere with religious practices but does not coerce conduct contrary to belief or deny equal governmental benefits?

Rule

Government action that has severe adverse effects on religious practices does not violate the Free Exercise Clause merely because it makes religious exercise more difficult or even threatens the efficacy of those practices. The Clause protects against governmental coercion into violating religious beliefs and against penalties on religious activity, but it does not give individuals a right to dictate the government's internal procedures or its use of its own land when the action does not prohibit free exercise in that coercive or punitive sense.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

The Bureau of Canyon Lands plans to permit a solar installation on federally owned desert land outside Santa Fe, New Mexico. Members of a small religious community sincerely believe the desert's untouched horizon is indispensable to their dawn ceremonies, and experts agree the project will greatly diminish the ceremonies' spiritual effectiveness, but the group remains free to enter the land and no public benefit is withheld from them.

Under the majority's rule, do the worshippers have the strongest Free Exercise claim?

Explanation. The majority held that even devastating effects on religious practice do not violate the Free Exercise Clause when the government is using its own land and the action neither coerces individuals to act contrary to belief nor penalizes religion through denial of equal rights, benefits, or privileges. The key point is that incidental interference with spiritual fulfillment is not enough. (Derived from Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association (1988).)