Opinion ID: 727280
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: The Tribe's Ceremonial Usage and the Establishment Clause

Text: 55 Albuquerque next claims that the EPA's approval of the Pueblo's ceremonial use designation offends the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The First Amendment provides in relevant part: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.... U.S. Const. amend. I. Government action does not violate the Establishment Clause if [t]he challenged governmental action has a secular purpose, does not have the principal or primary effect of advancing or inhibiting religion, and does not foster an excessive entanglement with religion. Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District, 508 U.S. 384, 395, 113 S.Ct. 2141, 2148, 124 L.Ed.2d 352 (1993) (citing Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612-13, 91 S.Ct. 2105, 2111-12, 29 L.Ed.2d 745 (1971)). 18 56 The EPA approved Isleta Pueblo's promulgation of Primary Contact Ceremonial Use as a designated use of the Rio Grande River within the boundaries of the Indian reservation. The tribe defines Primary Contact Ceremonial Use as the use of a stream, reach, lake, or impoundment for religious or traditional purposes by members of the PUEBLO OF ISLETA; such use involves immersion and intentional or incidental ingestion of water. 19 Appellant's App. at 1254. Albuquerque argues that the EPA's approval of this standard violates all three aspects of the Establishment Clause under Lemon. 57 First, Albuquerque argues that the reason for the designated use is explicitly sectarian. The secular purpose requirement does not mean that a law's purpose must be unrelated to religion because that would require  'that the government show a callous indifference to religious groups,' ... and the Establishment Clause has never been so interpreted. Corporation of Presiding Bishop of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints v. Amos, 483 U.S. 327, 335, 107 S.Ct. 2862, 2868, 97 L.Ed.2d 273 (1987) (citation omitted). The EPA's approval of the primary contact ceremonial use designation serves a clear secular purpose: promotion of the goals of the Clean Water Act. The EPA's purpose in approving the designated use is unrelated to the Isleta Pueblo's religious reason for establishing it. The Isleta Pueblo's designation of a ceremonial use does not invalidate the EPA's overall secular goal. 58 Second, Albuquerque claims that the EPA's action has a primary effect of advancing religion. We disagree. The EPA is not advancing religion through its own actions, and it is not promoting the Isleta Pueblo's religion. The primary effect of the EPA's action is to advance the goals of the Clean Water Act. 59 Third, Albuquerque asserts the designated use results in excessive governmental entanglement with religion because the Pueblo and the EPA must inquire on an ongoing basis whether the standards adequately protect religious uses of the river water. This argument is meritless. There is no genuine nexus between the EPA's approval of the ceremonial use standard and establishment of religion, Walz v. Tax Commission of City of New York, 397 U.S. 664, 675, 90 S.Ct. 1409, 1415, 25 L.Ed.2d 697 (1970), and the EPA's approval of the standard provides only an incidental benefit to religion. See Lamb's Chapel, 508 U.S. at 395, 113 S.Ct. at 2148. 20 The EPA's approval of the ceremonial use standard does not require any governmental involvement in the Isleta Pueblo's religious practices. Excessive governmental entanglement will not result when the EPA incorporates the Isleta Pueblo's water quality standards in issuing future NPDES permits. 60 The district court correctly rejected Albuquerque's Establishment Clause claim.