Archaeologists Sue US Government Over Native American Graves Protection Act Regulations

The Wyoming Association of Professional Archaeologists (WAPA) has initiated legal action against the US federal government, specifically targeting the Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Land Management. This lawsuit, filed in the US District Court for the District of Wyoming, contends that the government's revised regulations for the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) exceed the original statute's intent, leading to the inappropriate reclassification and transfer of archaeological materials. WAPA maintains that these expanded definitions and weakened cultural affiliation criteria impede scientific research and the proper curation of historical records, despite the acknowledged importance of lawful repatriation.

Wyoming Archaeologists Challenge Federal Repatriation Rules

In a significant legal development last month, on July 24, 2026, the Wyoming Association of Professional Archaeologists (WAPA), a nonprofit organization representing a diverse group of field archaeologists, academic researchers, and museum professionals, lodged a formal complaint against US Secretary of the Interior Douglas J. Burgum and the Bureau of Land Management. This legal challenge, filed in the US District Court for the District of Wyoming, seeks a judicial order to halt what WAPA describes as "unlawful transfers of, and denial of research access to, archaeological resources owned, administered, curated, or regulated by the United States" under the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) of 1990.

NAGPRA mandates that museums and federal agencies return Native American human remains, as well as funerary, sacred, and cultural patrimony objects, to their lineal descendants and tribal communities. In January 2024, the Department of the Interior implemented substantial revisions to this law. These updates aimed to accelerate the repatriation process, particularly after reports revealed that less than half of the human remains documented under the original act had been returned. The new regulations were specifically designed to close existing loopholes, bolster tribal authority, and provide institutions with a five-year window to inventory and prepare all ancestral remains and associated funerary objects for repatriation. A 2023 investigation by ProPublica highlighted the issue of items being labeled "culturally unidentifiable" as a common tactic to delay repatriation, a loophole the 2024 regulations intended to address.

However, these updated regulations have sparked controversy among certain institutions and their leaders. Despite the National Park Service allocating millions in grants to facilitate repatriation and major institutions like the Metropolitan Museum of Art continuing returns under the law, WAPA's complaint extends beyond just the 2024 rule. It challenges the entire regulatory framework developed by the Interior Department between 2010 and 2024, arguing that the department effectively "rewrote NAGPRA" in a manner that "exceeds the boundaries of the 1990 statute." The lawsuit, brought under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), asks the court to invalidate these regulations and prevent the government from enforcing them, asserting that they surpass the authority Congress delegated to the agency.

WAPA contends that the Interior Department's revised NAGPRA rules inflict harm upon the association, its members, and the broader public by "interfering with their ability to investigate, study, document, preserve, and curate the archaeological record." The complaint specifically scrutinizes how the new regulations relax the criteria for establishing cultural affiliation, broaden the statutory definitions of "cultural item," "funerary object," "sacred object," and "object of cultural patrimony." Furthermore, WAPA argues that the regulations compel agencies and museums to prioritize a wide range of "Native American traditional knowledge" in a way that bypasses the burden of proof required by the original statute.

Crucially, WAPA's complaint clarifies that it does not oppose NAGPRA itself or "lawful repatriation." It also refrains from asking the court to weigh in on the cultural, spiritual, or moral claims of any tribe regarding specific remains or objects, nor does it seek to reverse any completed transfers. Instead, the association aims to block six particular pending transfers, which it cites as concrete examples of the alleged regulatory overreach.

These contested transfers involve archaeological collections from several sites in Wyoming – Shute Creek, Wardell Bison Trap, Upper Muddy Creek Village, and Studhorse Butte – housed at the University of Wyoming Archaeological Repository, and the Eagle Rock Shelter site collection in Uinta County, Wyoming, curated at the Fort Bridger State Historic Site. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Wyoming and Colorado has asserted that these entire collections are associated funerary objects subject to repatriation. WAPA, however, counters that these collections primarily comprise everyday excavation materials, such as stone tool debris, soil samples, rocks, animal bones, and campsite refuse, arguing that these items should not be reclassified as NAGPRA "cultural items" simply because they were found at sites containing human remains.

The complaint forcefully states, "Since the 2024 regulations took effect, thousands (likely millions) more archaeological resources have been unlawfully divested (and continue to be divested) from archaeological repositories as a result of Interior’s ultra vires redefinition of NAGPRA’s key terms, expanding the scope of material subject to transfer far beyond the scope of that authorized by Congress." As reported by the news website The College Fix, both WAPA and the University of Wyoming did not respond to requests for comment, while the Department of the Interior and BLM declined to comment on the ongoing lawsuit.

This lawsuit brings to the forefront the delicate balance between respecting indigenous heritage and safeguarding archaeological research. It underscores the ongoing tensions in interpreting and implementing legislation like NAGPRA, which aims to correct historical injustices while also impacting the scientific study of past human societies. The outcome of this case could significantly influence how archaeological resources are managed and how cultural heritage laws are applied across the United States, potentially redefining the roles of federal agencies, academic institutions, and tribal communities in preserving and understanding human history.