Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. United States Army Corps of Engineers
239 F. Supp. 3d 77
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) nearly complete except for a crossing under Lake Oahe (federal waterway); Corps issued an easement on Feb. 8, 2017 after expedited review directed by Presidential memorandum.
- Standing Rock and Cheyenne River Sioux Tribes challenged Corps permits under environmental and historic-preservation statutes; Cheyenne River later sought to add a RFRA claim alleging the mere presence of oil under Lake Oahe would desecrate waters and prevent religious ceremonies.
- Cheyenne River moved for a preliminary injunction (and sought a TRO) to suspend the easement’s effect and prevent oil flow; the RFRA claim had not been pleaded earlier and was added only after construction approached completion.
- The Corps and Dakota Access argued the RFRA injunction was barred by laches and that the easement does not impose a substantial burden on religious exercise; they also emphasized prejudice from delay and near-completion of construction.
- The court held that (1) laches bars the requested preliminary-equitable relief because the Tribe inexcusably delayed asserting its RFRA theory and that delay prejudiced Defendants, and (2) the Tribe is unlikely to succeed on the merits because Lyng and its progeny foreclose finding a substantial burden from government action managing its own land.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether preliminary injunctive relief is barred by laches | Cheyenne River: RFRA claim timely under 4‑year statute; Corps’ consultation failures justify delay | Corps/DA: Tribe unreasonably delayed raising RFRA theory; delay prejudiced Defendants because project nearly complete | Held: Laches bars preliminary injunction (delay was inexcusable and prejudicial) |
| Whether Corps’ easement implicates religious exercise under RFRA | Cheyenne River: Lake Oahe water is sacred; mere presence of oil under lake desecrates water and prevents ceremonies | Corps/DA: Any burden is from private actor (Dakota Access) or is mere acquiescence by government | Held: Court assumed (without deciding) government action implicated religious exercise for merits analysis |
| Whether tribe’s beliefs are sincere | Cheyenne River: Beliefs (ritual purity, Black Snake prophecy) are longstanding and sincere | Corps/DA: Suggests skepticism due to lack of earlier assertion and presence of prior infrastructure | Held: Tribe likely to establish sincerity (court applies a light-touch sincerity inquiry) |
| Whether the easement substantially burdens religious exercise under RFRA | Cheyenne River: Presence of oil prevents use of Lake Oahe water and therefore substantially burdens ceremonies | Corps/DA: Lyng and related precedent control; management/use of federal land that incidentally affects religion does not impose a RFRA/Free‑Exercise substantial burden | Held: Tribe unlikely to show substantial burden; Lyng and Ninth Circuit precedent foreclose RFRA success on these facts |
Key Cases Cited
- Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 (injunction standard; extraordinary relief)
- Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Ass'n, 485 U.S. 439 (government land-management that incidentally affects religious practice does not violate Free Exercise)
- Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2751 (RFRA scope; sincerity and substantial-burden framework)
- Holt v. Hobbs, 135 S. Ct. 853 (substantial-burden analysis in prisoner context)
- Navajo Nation v. United States Forest Service, 535 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. en banc) (applies Lyng to RFRA challenge to artificial snow — diminished spiritual fulfillment is not a substantial burden)
- Kaemmerling v. Lappin, 553 F.3d 669 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (definition of substantial burden under RFRA/Free Exercise analysis)
- Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin v. United States, 614 F.3d 519 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (laches standard in equitable relief context)