Robson Bonnichsen C. Loring Brace George W. Gill C. Vance Haynes, Jr. Richard L. Jantz Douglas W. Owsley Dennis J. Stanford D. Gentry Steele v. United States of America United States Army United States Army Corps of Engineers David A. Fastabend Francis P. McManamon Edward J. Kertis Thomas E. White Gale A. Norton Craig Manson Robert B. Flowers National Park Service United States Department of the Interior, Nez Perce Tribe of Idaho Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation Confederated Tribes & Bands of the Yakama Nation Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, Defendants-Intervenors. Robson Bonnichsen C. Loring Brace George W. Gill C. Vance Haynes, Jr. Richard L. Jantz Douglas W. Owsley Dennis J. Stanford D. Gentry Steele v. United States of America United States Army United States Army Corps of Engineers David A. Fastabend Francis P. McManamon Edward J. Kertis Thomas E. White Gale A. Norton Craig Manson Robert B. Flowers National Park Service United States Department of the Interior, Nez Perce Tribe of Idaho Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation Confederated Tribes & Bands of the Yakama Nation Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, Defendants-Intervenors-Appellants

This is a case about the ancient human remains of a man who hunted and lived, or at least journeyed, in the Columbia Plateau an estimated 8340 to 9200 years ago, a time predating all recorded history from any place in the world, a time before the oldest cities of our world had been founded, a time so ancient that the pristine and untouched land and the primitive cultures that may have lived on it are not deeply understood by even the most well-informed men and women of our age. Seeking the opportunity of study, a group of scientists as Plaintiffs1 in this case brought an action against, inter alia, the United States Department of the Interior, challenging various Indian tribes'2 claim to one of the most important American anthropological and archaeological discoveries of the late twentieth century, and challenging the Interior Department's decision honoring the tribes' claim. The discovery that launched this contest was that of a human skeleton, estimated by carbon dating to be 8340 to 9200 years old, known popularly and commonly as "Kennewick Man," but known as "the Ancient One" to some American Indians3 who now inhabit regions in Washington, Idaho, and Oregon, roughly proximate to the site on the Columbia River at Kennewick, Washington, where the bones were found. From the perspective of the scientists Plaintiffs, this skeleton is an irreplaceable source of information about early New World populations that warrants careful scientific inquiry to advance knowledge of distant times. Yet, from the perspective of the intervenor-Indian tribes the skeleton is that of an ancestor who, according to the tribes' religious and social traditions, should be buried immediately without further testing.

Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit seeking to stop the transfer of the skeleton by the government to the tribes for burial, and the district court held in favor of the scientists-Plaintiffs.4 The Secretary of the Interior and the intervenor-Indian tribes appeal. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm the judgment of the district court barring the transfer of the skeleton for immediate burial and instead permitting scientific study of the skeleton.

* In July 1996, teenagers going to a boat race discovered a human skull and bones near the shore of the Columbia River just outside Kennewick, Washington.5 The remains were found on federal property under the management of the United States Army Corps of Engineers ("Corps") and, at the request of the county coroner, were removed for analysis by an anthropologist, Dr. James Chatters, pursuant to an Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 ("ARPA"), 16 U.S.C. §§ 470aa-470mm, permit. Because of physical features such as the shape of the skull and facial bones, anthropologists at first thought the remains were those of an early European settler. But the anthropologists then found a stone projectile point embedded in the skeleton's upper hip bone. The object's design, when viewed with x-rays and CT scans of the hip, resembled a style that was common before the documented arrival of Europeans in the region. Further study of the remains revealed characteristics unlike those of a European settler, yet also inconsistent with any American Indian remains previously documented in the region. A minute quantity of metacarpal bone was radiocarbon dated. The laboratory estimated the age of the bones to be between 8340 and 9200 years old.6

The skeleton attracted attention because some of its physical features, such as the shape of the face and skull, differed from those of modern American Indians. Many scientists believed the discovery might shed light on the origins of humanity in the Americas. On August 31, 1996, Dr. Douglas Owsley, Division Head for Physical Anthropology at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C., made arrangements for Dr. Chatters to bring this important find to the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History for further study.7

Indian tribes from the area of the Columbia River opposed scientific study of the remains on religious and social grounds.8 Four Indian groups (the "Tribal Claimants") demanded that the remains be turned over to them for immediate burial. The Tribal Claimants based their demand on the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act ("NAGPRA"), 25 U.S.C. § 3001 et seq. The Corps agreed with the Tribal Claimants and, citing NAGPRA, seized the remains on September 10, 1996, shortly before they could be transported to the Smithsonian. The Corps also ordered an immediate halt to DNA testing, which was being done using the remainder of the bone sample that had been submitted earlier for radiocarbon dating. After investigation, the Corps decided to give the remains to the Tribal Claimants for burial. As required by NAGPRA, the Corps published a "Notice of Intent to Repatriate Human Remains" in a local newspaper on September 17, 1996, and September 24, 1996.

The scientists and others, including the Smithsonian Institution, objected to the Corps' decision, arguing that the remains were a rare discovery of national and international significance. In late September and early October 1996, several scientists asked Major General Ernest J. Herrell, Commander of the Corps' North Pacific Division, to allow qualified scientists to study the remains.

The scientists did not convince the Corps to permit them to study the remains, and commenced this litigation on October 16, 1996, in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon. In an opinion issued June 27, 1997, the district court9 denied the Corps' motion for summary judgment, finding that the Corps had "acted before it had all of the evidence," "did not fully consider or resolve certain difficult legal questions," and "assumed facts that proved to be erroneous." Bonnichsen II, 969 F.Supp. 628, 645 (D.Or.1997). The district court vacated the Corps' earlier decision on disposition of the remains and remanded the case to the Corps for further proceedings. Id. at 644-45. The district court also denied, without prejudice, Plaintiffs' motion to study the remains and directed the Corps to consider, on remand, "whether to grant [P]laintiffs' request [under ARPA] for permission to study the remains." Id. at 632, 651.

On March 24, 1998, the Corps and the Secretary of the Interior entered into an agreement that effectively assigned to the Secretary responsibility to decide whether the remains were "Native American" under NAGPRA, and to determine their proper disposition. The Department of the Interior then assumed the role of lead agency on this case.

Almost two years after this matter was remanded, the Secretary's experts began to examine the remains in detail. The experts estimated that Kennewick Man was 5'9" to 5'10" tall, 45 to 50 years of age when he died, and 15 to 20 years old when the projectile point became embedded in his hip. The experts could not determine, from non-destructive examination of the skeleton alone, when Kennewick Man lived. However, analysis of sediment layers where the skeleton was found supported the hypothesis that the remains dated back not less than 7600 years ago and Kennewick Man could have lived more than 9000 years ago (the date indicated by the initial radiocarbon dating of the skeleton). Further study of the sediment was recommended, but the Corps' decision to bury the discovery site in April 1998 prevented completion of those studies.10

The experts compared the physical characteristics of the remains — e.g., measurements of the skull, teeth, and bones — with corresponding measurements from other skeletons. They concluded that Kennewick Man's remains were unlike those of any known present-day population, American Indian or otherwise.

The Secretary's experts cautioned, however, that an apparent lack of physical resemblance between the Kennewick Man's remains and present-day American Indians did not completely rule out the possibility that the remains might be biologically ancestral to modern American Indians. Moreover, although Kennewick Man's morphological traits did not closely resemble those of modern American Indian populations, the Secretary's experts noted that Kennewick Man's physical attributes are generally consistent with the very small number of human remains from this period that have been found in North America.

Relying solely on the age of the remains and the fact that the remains were found within the United States, on January 13, 2000, the Secretary pronounced Kennewick Man's remains "Native American" within NAGPRA's meaning. And on September 25, 2000, the Secretary determined that a preponderance of the evidence supported the conclusion that the Kennewick remains were culturally affiliated with present-day Indian tribes. For this reason, the Secretary announced his final decision to award Kennewick Man's remains to a coalition of the Tribal Claimants. The Corps and the Secretary also denied Plaintiffs' request to study the remains.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in the district court challenging the Secretary's decisions. The district court again ruled in Plaintiffs' favor. As pertinent to this appeal, the district court vacated the Secretary's decisions as contrary to the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) ("APA"), on the ground that the Secretary improperly concluded that NAGPRA applies.11 Bonnichsen III, 217 F.Supp.2d 1138-39. The district court also held that, because NAGPRA did not apply, Plaintiffs should have the opportunity to study Kennewick Man's remains under ARPA. Defendants and the Tribal Claimants appealed, and we stayed the district court's order granting Plaintiffs-scientists' study of the remains pending our decision herein.12

We first address an issue of jurisdiction. The Tribal Claimants argue that we lack jurisdiction because: (1) Plaintiffs' alleged injuries are not "redressable" by court action, and (2) Plaintiffs lack standing to bring claims alleging violations of NAGPRA because Plaintiffs do not seek to invoke interests within the "zone of interests" protected by NAGPRA.

* As a general rule, the three constitutional standing requirements are imposed by the "case" or "controversy" provision of Article III:

(1) that the plaintiff have suffered an "injury in fact" ...; (2) that there be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of...; and (3) that it be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.

Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 167, 117 S.Ct. 1154, 137 L.Ed.2d 281 (1997). The Tribal Claimants do not dispute that Plaintiffs meet the first two constitutional standing requirements, and we so hold. But the Tribal Claimants argue that Plaintiffs do not meet the third requirement. The Tribal Claimants contend that Plaintiffs cannot show that the alleged injury, losing the opportunity to study Kennewick Man's remains, would be redressed by a favorable court decision because, the Tribal Claimants contend, NAGPRA, not ARPA, applies to this case, precluding redress of Plaintiffs' alleged injury. Stated another way, Defendants' theory is that Plaintiffs' injury is not redressable because Plaintiffs are not entitled to relief.

This argument is incorrect. The question in deciding whether a plaintiff's injury is redressable is not whether a favorable decision is likely but whether a favorable decision likely will redress a plaintiff's injury. See Bennett, 520 U.S. at 167, 117 S.Ct. 1154. In deciding whether a plaintiff's injury is redressable, courts assume that plaintiff's claim has legal merit. See Hall v. Norton, 266 F.3d 969, 976-77 (9th Cir.2001) ("The purpose of the standing doctrine is to ensure that the plaintiff has a concrete dispute with the defendant, not that the plaintiff will ultimately prevail against the defendant."). Were the rule otherwise, courts would never have jurisdiction to entertain a lawsuit that appeared, at the pleading stage, and before evidence was considered, likely to fail on the merits. Such a rule would be illogical.

Here, if NAGPRA does not apply (as we must assume in determining whether Plaintiffs have standing), ARPA applies, per the district court's ruling. Kennewick Man's remains are of archaeological significance and were collected pursuant to an ARPA permit. Neither Appellant disputes that ARPA gives Plaintiffs the opportunity to study Kennewick Man's remains if NAGPRA does not apply. We conclude that it is likely that Plaintiffs' injury will be redressed by a favorable decision on the NAGPRA issue, and thus Plaintiffs have constitutional standing.

Second, the Tribal Claimants argue that Plaintiffs lack standing to bring claims alleging violations of NAGPRA because Plaintiffs do not seek to invoke interests within the "zone of interests" that NAGPRA protects. The Tribal Claimants urge that Congress enacted NAGPRA only with the interests of American Indians in mind, so only American Indians or Indian tribes can file suit alleging violations of NAGPRA. We reject this argument.

The "zone of interests" test invoked by the Tribal Claimants is a judge-made "prudential standing requirement," independent of the three immutable constitutional standing requirements of Article III. See Bennett, 520 U.S. at 163, 117 S.Ct. 1154. Congress can modify or abrogate the zone of interests test, see id., and Congress did exactly that in NAGPRA's broadly worded "enforcement" section. That statute, 25 U.S.C. § 3013, provides that "[t]he United States district courts shall have jurisdiction over any action brought by any person alleging a violation of this chapter." Section 3013 by its terms broadly confers jurisdiction on the courts to hear "any action" brought by "any person alleging a violation." Id. (emphasis added).

The Supreme Court has held that such broad statutory language effectively negates the prudential zone of interests test. In Bennett, the Court decided "to take the term `any person' at face value," and held that "any person" could enforce the Endangered Species Act, which provides that "any person may commence a civil suit on his own behalf ... to enjoin any person... alleged to be in violation of any provision of this chapter." 520 U.S. at 165 & n. 2, 117 S.Ct. 1154; 16 U.S.C. § 1540(g). In Trafficante v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 409 U.S. 205, 210-11, 93 S.Ct. 364, 34 L.Ed.2d 415 (1972), the Court held that standing was expanded to the full extent permitted under Article III by the Civil Rights Act of 1968. That statute provided, "[a] ny person who claims to have been injured by a discriminatory housing practice" may sue. 42 U.S.C. § 3610(a) (1986 ed.) (emphasis added).

Like the statutes at issue in Bennett and Trafficante, § 3013 of NAGPRA contains the broad "any person" formulation and includes no textual limitation on federal court jurisdiction. Moreover, § 3013 does not contain the more restrictive formulations Congress sometimes uses to limit standing. See, e.g., 15 U.S.C. § 298(b)(authorizing suit only by "competitors, customers, or subsequent purchasers"). We hold that § 3013 does not limit jurisdiction to suits brought by American Indians or Indian tribes. "Any person" means exactly that, and may not be interpreted restrictively to mean only "any American Indian person" or "any Indian Tribe."13

It is true that Plaintiffs are seeking to prevent the Secretary from repatriating human remains, rather than to compel the Secretary to repatriate them. But the "any person" formulation applies to all causes of action authorized by § 3013. The formulation applies not only to actions against the Secretary asserting under-enforcement of NAGPRA, but also to actions against the Secretary asserting over-enforcement. See Bennett, 520 U.S. at 166, 117 S.Ct. 1154("[T]he `any person' formulation applies to all the causes of action authorized by[the Endangered Species Act] ... not only to actions against the Secretary asserting underenforcement... but also to actions against the Secretary asserting overenforcement...."). We conclude that we have jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' claims that NAGPRA was violated.14

Our review of the Secretary's decision to transfer Kennewick Man to the Tribal Claimants is governed by the APA, which instructs courts to "hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be ... arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law." 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).

NAGPRA vests "ownership or control" of newly discovered Native American human remains in the decedent's lineal descendants or, if lineal descendants cannot be ascertained, in a tribe "affiliated" with the remains. 25 U.S.C. § 3002(a). NAGPRA mandates a two-part analysis. The first inquiry is whether human remains are Native American within the statute's meaning. If the remains are not Native American, then NAGPRA does not apply. However, if the remains are Native American, then NAGPRA applies, triggering the second inquiry of determining which persons or tribes are most closely affiliated with the remains.

The parties dispute whether the remains of Kennewick Man constitute Native American remains within NAGPRA's meaning. NAGPRA defines human remains as "Native American" if the remains are "of, or relating to, a tribe, people, or culture that is indigenous to the United States." 25 U.S.C. § 3001(9). The text of the relevant statutory clause is written in the present tense ("of, or relating to, a tribe, people, or culture that is indigenous"). Thus the statute unambiguously requires that human remains bear some relationship to a presently existing tribe, people, or culture to be considered Native American.

It is axiomatic that, in construing a statute, courts generally give words not defined in a statute their "ordinary or natural meaning." United States v. Alvarez-Sanchez, 511 U.S. 350, 357, 114 S.Ct. 1599, 128 L.Ed.2d 319 (1994); see also Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 420, 431, 120 S.Ct. 1479, 146 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000) (holding that courts "give the words of a statute their ordinary, contemporary, common meaning, absent an indication Congress intended them to bear some different import") (internal quotation marks omitted).

In the context of NAGPRA, we conclude that Congress's use of the present tense is significant.15 The present tense "in general represents present time." R. Pence and D. Emery, A Grammar of Present Day English 262(2d ed.1963). Congress, by using the phrase "is indigenous" in the present tense, referred to presently existing tribes, peoples, or cultures. We must presume that Congress gave the phrase "is indigenous" its ordinary or natural meaning. Alvarez-Sanchez, 511 U.S. at 357, 114 S.Ct. 1599. We conclude that Congress was referring to presently existing Indian tribes when it referred to "a tribe, people, or culture that is indigenous to the United States." 25 U.S.C. § 3001(9) (emphasis added).16

NAGPRA also protects graves of persons not shown to be of current tribes in that it protects disjunctively remains "of, or relating to" current indigenous tribes. Thus, NAGPRA extends to all remains that relate to a tribe, people, or culture that is indigenous to the United States, see 25 U.S.C. § 3001(9) (defining human remains as Native American if they are "of, or relating to, a tribe, people, or culture that is indigenous to the United States") (emphasis added).

Our conclusion that NAGPRA's language requires that human remains, to be considered Native American, bear some relationship to a presently existing tribe, people, or culture accords with NAGPRA's purposes. As regards newly discovered human remains, NAGPRA was enacted with two main goals: to respect the burial traditions of modern-day American Indians and to protect the dignity of the human body after death. NAGPRA was intended to benefit modern American Indians by sparing them the indignity and resentment that would be aroused by the despoiling of their ancestors' graves and the study or the display of their ancestors' remains. See H.R.Rep. No. 101-877, at 4369 (1990) ("For many years, Indian tribes have attempted to have the remains and funerary objects of their ancestors returned to them.") (emphasis added).

Congress's purposes would not be served by requiring the transfer to modern American Indians of human remains that bear no relationship to them. Yet, that would be the result under the Secretary's construction of the statute, which would give Native American status to any remains found within the United States regardless of age and regardless of lack of connection to existing indigenous tribes.17 The exhumation, study, and display of ancient human remains that are unrelated to modern American Indians was not a target of Congress's aim, nor was it precluded by NAGPRA.

NAGPRA was also intended to protect the dignity of the human body after death by ensuring that Native American graves and remains be treated with respect. See S.Rep. No. 101-473, at 6 (1990) ("The Committee believes that human remains must at all times be treated with dignity and respect."); H.R.Rep. No. 101-877, at 4372 (1990) ("Some Indian representatives testified that the spirits of their ancestors would not rest until they are returned to their homeland....") (emphasis added). Congress's purpose is served by requiring the return to modern-day American Indians of human remains that bear some significant relationship to them.

Despite the statute's language and legislative history, the Secretary argues that the district court's interpretation "improperly collapses" NAGPRA's first inquiry (asking whether human remains are Native American) into NAGPRA's second inquiry (asking which American Indians or Indian tribe bears the closest relationship to Native American remains). The Secretary is mistaken. Though NAGPRA's two inquiries have some commonality in that both focus on the relationship between human remains and present-day Indians, the two inquiries differ significantly. The first inquiry requires only a general finding that remains have a significant relationship to a presently existing "tribe, people, or culture," a relationship that goes beyond features common to all humanity. The second inquiry requires a more specific finding that remains are most closely affiliated to specific lineal descendants or to a specific Indian tribe. The district court's interpretation of NAGPRA preserves the statute's two distinct inquiries. Because the record shows no relationship of Kennewick Man to the Tribal Claimants, the district court was correct in holding that NAGPRA has no application.

The Secretary finally argues that, under Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 467 U.S. 837, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984), we must defer to the Secretary's interpretation of "Native American." The Secretary by regulation has defined "Native American" to mean "of, or relating to, a tribe, people, or culture indigenous to the United States." 43 C.F.R. § 10.2(d). The Secretary's regulation, enacted through notice and comment rulemaking, defines Native American exactly as NAGPRA defines it, with one critical exception: the regulation omits the present tense phrase "that is." Compare 25 U.S.C. § 3001(9) ("a culture that is indigenous to the United States") (emphasis added) with 43 C.F.R. § 10.2(d) ("a culture indigenous to the United States") (emphasis added). We hold, for the reasons discussed above, that NAGPRA's requirement that Native American remains bear some relationship to a presently existing tribe, people, or culture is unambiguous, and that the Secretary's contrary interpretation therefore is not owed Chevron deference. See Chevron, 467 U.S. at 842-43, 104 S.Ct. 2778 ("If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter; for the court, as well as the agency, must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress.");18 see also Wilderness Soc'y v. United States Fish & Wildlife Serv., No. 01-35266, 353 F.3d 1051, 1061, 2003 WL 23025466, at *6 (9th Cir. Dec.30, 2003) (en banc) ("If, under these canons, or other traditional means of determining Congress's intentions, we are able to determine that Congress spoke clearly ..., then we may not defer to the[agency's] contrary interpretation."). Moreover, the Secretary's regulation conflicts with NAGPRA's plain language and so is invalid for that reason. See Whitman v. Am. Trucking Ass'ns, 531 U.S. 457, 481, 121 S.Ct. 903, 149 L.Ed.2d 1 (2001) (holding that Chevron deference is due only to a "reasonable interpretation made by the administrator of an agency") (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks omitted); Pub. Employees Ret. Sys. of Ohio v. Betts, 492 U.S. 158, 171, 109 S.Ct. 2854, 106 L.Ed.2d 134 (1989) ("[N]o deference is due to agency interpretations at odds with the plain language of the statute itself."). Finally, the common maxim of statutory construction that we must give effect, if possible, to every word Congress used is fatal to the Secretary's attempt to amend NAGPRA by removing the phrase "that is." See Bennett, 520 U.S. at 173, 117 S.Ct. 1154 ("It is the `cardinal principle of statutory construction' [that courts must] give effect, if possible, to every clause and word of a statute...."). We hold that, notwithstanding 43 C.F.R. § 10.2(d), NAGPRA requires that human remains bear a significant relationship to a presently existing tribe, people, or culture to be considered Native American. The district court did not err in reaching that conclusion.

The requirement that we must give effect, if possible, to every word Congress used supports our holding that human remains must be related to a currently existing tribe to come within NAGPRA's protection. Under the Secretary's view of NAGPRA, all graves and remains of persons, predating European settlers, that are found in the United States would be "Native American," in the sense that they presumptively would be viewed as remains of a deceased from a tribe "indigenous" to the United States, even if the tribe had ceased to exist thousands of years before the remains were found, and even if there was no showing of any relationship of the remains to some existing tribe indigenous to the United States. Such an extreme interpretation, as was urged by the Secretary here, see supra note 17, would render superfluous NAGPRA's alternative "relating to" method for establishing remains as "Native American" (i.e., if remains are "of, or relating to, a tribe that is indigenous to the United States"). If accepted, the Secretary's interpretation would mean that the finding of any remains in the United States in and of itself would automatically render these remains "Native American." This interpretation would leave no meaning for the "relating to" clause, unless we were to interpret the clause to cover remains found outside the United States. But we cannot conclude that Congress intended an absurd result, for Congress could not be considered to have jurisdiction over disposition of human remains found in some other country. By reading NAGPRA's definition of "Native American" literally, meaning is given to each of its terms. Some remains may be covered because they are remains of a tribe, people, or culture that is indigenous, while other remains may be covered because they are "related to" a currently existing indigenous tribe, people, or culture.

Our analysis is strengthened by contrasting the statutory definition of the adjective "Native American" to the statutory definition of the noun "Native Hawaiian." Under § 3001(9), "`Native American' means of, or relating to, a tribe, people or culture that is indigenous to the United States." (Emphasis added). Under § 3001(10), "`Native Hawaiian' means any individual who is a descendant of the aboriginal people who, prior to 1778, occupied and exercised sovereignty in the area that now constitutes the State of Hawaii." (Emphasis added).

The "United States" is a political entity that dates back to 1789. Owings v. Speed, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 420, 423, 5 L.Ed. 124 (1820). This term supports that Congress's use of the present tense ("that is indigenous") referred to tribes, peoples, and cultures that exist in modern times, not to those that may have existed thousands of years ago but who do not exist now. By contrast, when Congress chose to harken back to earlier times, it described a geographic location ("the area that now constitutes the State of Hawaii") rather than a political entity ("the United States").

Our conclusion that NAGPRA requires human remains to bear some relationship to a presently existing tribe, people, or culture to be considered "Native American" is also reinforced by how NAGPRA defines "sacred objects." NAGPRA defines "sacred objects" as "specific ceremonial objects which are needed by traditional Native American religious leaders for the practice of traditional Native American religions by their present day adherents." 25 U.S.C. § 3001(3)(C)(emphasis added). A literal reading of this definition reveals that any artifact to be deemed a "sacred object" must be connected to the practice of an American Indian religion by present-day peoples. This reading is consistent with our reading of "Native American"; that is, just as there must be a relationship between an artifact and a presently existing peoples for the artifact to be a "sacred object" under NAGPRA, there must be a relationship between a set of remains and a presently existing tribe, people, or culture for those remains to be "Native American" under NAGPRA.

Although NAGPRA does not specify precisely what kind of a relationship or precisely how strong a relationship ancient human remains must bear to modern Indian groups to qualify as Native American, NAGPRA's legislative history provides some guidance on what type of relationship may suffice. The House Committee