John Thorpe v. Borough of Jim Thorpe
770 F.3d 255
3rd Cir.2014Background
- Jim Thorpe died in 1953; Patsy Thorpe, his widow, arranged his burial and ultimate resting place in the Borough of Jim Thorpe, PA, over several family members’ objections.
- The Borough of Jim Thorpe, a newly formed local government, maintains the burial site as part of its duties.
- In 1990, Congress enacted NAGPRA to inventory and repatriate Native American remains and cultural items in museums and federally funded institutions.
- In 2010, John Thorpe sued the Borough arguing NAGPRA required disinterment and repatriation of Thorpe’s remains; the district court held the Borough a NAGPRA museum and subject to repatriation procedures.
- The district court’s ruling was appealed by the Borough and other parties; the Third Circuit ultimately held that the Borough is not a museum under NAGPRA and that NAGPRA’s provisions do not apply to Thorpe’s burial.
- The court remanded with instructions to enter judgment in favor of the Borough and to dismiss the §1983 claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Borough is a museum under NAGPRA | Thorpe asserts Borough is a museum and subject to NAGPRA’s repatriation. | Borough contends it is not a museum, so NAGPRA does not apply. | Borough is not a museum; NAGPRA does not apply. |
| Whether NAGPRA should apply to Thorpe’s burial given its unique familial and ceremonial circumstances | NAGPRA should compel repatriation as to Native American burial remains. | Literal application would yield absurd results contrary to Congress’s intent. | NAGPRA should not apply as applied here; absurd results avoided. |
| Whether the district court’s decision on NAGPRA affects the §1983 claim | Plaintiffs can pursue §1983 for NAGPRA violation if applicable. | If NAGPRA does not apply, §1983 claim fails. | Affirm district court on §1983 dismissal; reverse only on NAGPRA applicability. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pell v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 539 F.3d 292 (3d Cir. 2008) (plenary review of legal standards)
- Griffin v. Oceanic Contractors, Inc., 458 U.S. 564 (Supreme Court 1982) (absurd results avoided by context of statute)
- First Merchants Acceptance Corp. v. J.C. Bradford & Co., 198 F.3d 394 (3d Cir. 1999) (restrictive interpretation to avoid contrary legislative intent)
- Burns v. United States, 501 U.S. 129 (Supreme Court 1991) (statutory interpretation should not produce absurd results)
- FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120 (Supreme Court 2000) (statutory interpretation in regulatory schemes)
- United States v. Corrow, 119 F.3d 796 (10th Cir. 1997) (NAGPRA framework and scope of repatriation)