Bibliographic record
Abstract
Native American nations have sought protections for sacred lands, practices, objects, and ancestral remains under the legal regime of religious freedom with little success. While many have understood this as a failure of judicial understanding of the distinctive features of indigenous religions, I contend courts have failed to reckon fully with the collective nature of the religious freedom claims, especially when tribes, not individuals, are the litigants. When courts face sacred claims of Native nations, they should regard these both in terms of religious freedom law and in the collective terms of federal Indian law, based on treaties, the special government to government relationship with the tribes, and the federal trust responsibility to preserve and protect the tribes’ cultures and religions. I begin with an analysis of the key sacred lands cases for the workings of a misrecognition of collective claims of religious obligation as matters of individual spiritual fulfillment. I then trace the decidedly collective contours of statutory protections in the American Indian Religious Freedom Act (1978) and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (1990), tailored as they are to the government to government relationship of federal Indian law. I proceed to identify a pattern of court recognition of collective Native American religions in the case law surrounding accommodations under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. I bolster the argument with a view to international human rights law and the collective logic of the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007). Finally, I develop a reading of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2014) that supports such recognition of collective rights to Native American religious freedom under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (1993).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".