Case: 13-2446 Document: 003111429913 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/23/2013 Nos. 13-2446 & 13-2451 _________________ In The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit _________________ JOHN THORPE; SAC AND FOX NATION OF OKLAHOMA; WILLIAM THORPE; and RICHARD THORPE; Plaintiffs-Appellees/Cross-Appellants, v. BOROUGH OF JIM THORPE; MICHAEL SOFRANKO; RONALD CONFER; JOHN McGUIRE; JOSEPH MARZEN; W. TODD MASON; JEREMY MELBER; JUSTIN YAICH; JOSEPH KREBS; GREG STRUBINGER; KYLE SHECKLER; and JOANNE KLITSCH; Defendants-Appellants/Cross-Appellees. _________________ On Appeal from an Order Entered by the Honorable A. Richard Caputo, United States District Judge, Middle District of Pennsylvania, No. 3:10-cv-1317-ARC. _________________ BRIEF OF THE APPELLEES/CROSS-APPELLANTS _________________ CHARLES L. RIDDLE STEPHEN R. WARD RIDDLE PATENT LAW, LLC DANIEL E. GOMEZ 434 LACKAWANNA AVENUE, SUITE 200 CONNER & WINTERS, LLP SCRANTON, PENNSYLVANIA 18503 4000 ONE WILLIAMS CENTER (570) 344-4439 TULSA, OKLAHOMA 74172-0148 (918) 586-8978 Attorneys for Appellees/Cross-Appellants October 23, 2013 Case: 13-2446 Document: 003111429913 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/23/2013 CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PARTIES AND CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Pursuant to Rule 26.1 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and Third 3d Cir. L.A.R. 26.1, the Plaintiffs-Appellees/Cross-Appellants hereby make the following disclosures: For purposes of this action, the following are the parent companies and publicly held corporations, along with their subsidiaries and affiliates, that own a ten percent (10%) or more interest in any Appellee/Cross-Appellant, or that have a financial interest in the outcome of this litigation: None. The Appellees are individuals and a federally-recognized Indian tribe. Respectfully submitted, s/ Stephen R. Ward Charles L. Riddle Stephen R. Ward, Okla. Bar No. 13610 RIDDLE PATENT LAW, LLC CONNER & WINTERS, LLP 434 Lackawanna Avenue, Suite 200 4000 One Williams Center Scranton, Pennsylvania 18503 Tulsa, Oklahoma 74172-0148 (570) 344-4439 (918) 586-8978 [email protected] Attorneys for Appellees/Cross-Appellants i Case: 13-2446 Document: 003111429913 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/23/2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PARTIES AND CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ................................................................................... i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ..................................................................................... v JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT .......................................................................... 1 ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW ..................................................................... 2 STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES AND PROCEEDINGS .............................. 3 STATEMENT OF THE CASE .................................................................................. 4 STATEMENT OF FACTS ........................................................................................ 7 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ...................................................................... 16 STANDARDS OF REVIEW ................................................................................... 17 ARGUMENT & AUTHORITIES ........................................................................... 19 I. BASED UPON ITS PLAIN STATUTORY LANGUAGE, THE DISTRICT COURT CORRECTLY APPLIED NAGPRA TO THE REMAINS OF JIM THORPE AND TO THE BOROUGH ......................... 19 A. NAGPRA Unambiguously Encompasses All Native American Human Remains and Is Not Limited to Ancient or Prehistoric Burials.................................................................................................. 20 B. Although Resort to Legislative History is Unnecessary, Application of NAGPRA in the Case is Consistent with the Purpose of the Law .............................................................................. 25 C. Application of NAGPRA to the Facts of this Case is Consistent with its Purpose and is Not Legally “Absurd” or “Bizarre” ............... 29 ii Case: 13-2446 Document: 003111429913 Page: 4 Date Filed: 10/23/2013 D. The Borough Has Failed to Identify Any Valid Constitutional or Other Concerns that Would Prevent the Application of NAGPRA ............................................................................................. 33 II. THE BOROUGH FALLS WITHIN THE BROAD DEFINITION OF A “MUSEUM” UNDER NAGPRA, AND IT HAS OFFERED NO VALID DEFENSE TO THE STATUTE’S APPLICATION ................ 38 A. The Borough Has Received “Federal Funds” and Therefore Falls Within Congress’s Definition of a “Museum” ........................... 39 B. The Borough’s “Right of Possession” Argument Has Been Waived and is Not a Defense to Repatriation of Human Remains ............................................................................................... 44 III. EVEN IF SUCH A DEFENSE IS APPLICABLE TO NAGPRA, THE EQUITABLE DOCTRINE OF LACHES WOULD NOT BAR A REPATRIATION, ..................................................................................... 49 A. The District Court Properly Found No Prejudice that Would Allow the Borough to Assert a Laches Defense to the Mandates of NAGPRA ........................................................................................ 50 B. The Borough Has, as a Matter of Law, Failed to Meet Its Burden in Establishing a Laches Defense ........................................... 52 IV. THE CROSS-APPELLANTS SATISFIED THE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS FOR A CLAIM UNDER § 1983 TO REMEDY THE BOROUGH’S DENIAL OF THEIR RECOGNIZED RIGHTS .......... 55 A. The Borough’s Refusal to Comply with NAGPRA Comprised a Longstanding Practice or Custom that Supports a Claim Under § 1983 .................................................................................................. 56 B. Section 1983 Claims Are Unavailable Only Where Congress Specifically Has Foreclosed the Remedy Through Elaborate Enforcement Mechanisms ................................................................... 58 C. The Enforcement Provisions in NAGPRA Do Not Provide a Comprehensive or Exclusive Remedy that Forecloses a Claim Under § 1983 ....................................................................................... 64 iii Case: 13-2446 Document: 003111429913 Page: 5 Date Filed: 10/23/2013 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 66 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ..................................................................... xiii CERTIFICATE OF BAR MEMBERSHIP ............................................................. xiv CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................ xv iv Case: 13-2446 Document: 003111429913 Page: 6 Date Filed: 10/23/2013 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) CASES Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, ___ U.S. ___, 133 S. Ct. 2552 (2013) .................... 34 Bentley v. Cleveland County Board of County Commissioners, 41 F.3d 600 (10th Cir. 1994) ................................................................................. 40, 42-44 Bermuda Express, N.V. v. M/V Litsa (Ex. Laurie U), 872 F.2d 554 (3d Cir. 1989) .................................................................................................. 18, 19, 51 Blessing v. Freestone, 520 U.S. 329, 117 S. Ct. 1353 (1997) ........................... 59-61 Bonnichsen v. United States Department of the Army, 367 F.3d 864 (9th Cir. 2004) .............................................................................................................. 25 Bushman v. Halm, 798 F.2d 651 (3d Cir. 1986) ...................................................... 18 Chapman v. Higbee Co., 319 F.3d 825 (6th Cir. 2003) ........................................... 29 Cheruku v. Attorney General of the United States, 662 F.3d 198 (3d Cir. 2011) .............................................................................................................. 54 Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 104 S. Ct. 2778 (1984) ........................................................................... 21 City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams, 544 U.S. 113, 125 S. Ct. 1453 (2005) ....................................................................................................... 62-64 City of Reading, Pennsylvania v. Austin, 816 F. Supp. 351 (E.D. Pa. 1993) .... 52, 54 Contractors Association of Eastern Pennsylvania, Inc. v. City of Philadelphia, 6 F.3d 990 (3d Cir. 1993) ....................................................... 35 County of Yakima v. Yakima Indian Nation, 502 U.S. 251, 112 S. Ct. 683 (1992) ............................................................................................................. 20 Covelo Indian Community v. Watt, 551 F. Supp. 366 (D.D.C. 1982) ............... 53-54 v Case: 13-2446 Document: 003111429913 Page: 7 Date Filed: 10/23/2013 Cyberworld Entertainment Technologies, Inc. v. Napolitano, 602 F.3d 189 (3d Cir. 2010) ................................................................................................. 50 Dutton v. Wolpoff & Abramson, 5 F.3d 649 (3d Cir. 1993) .................................... 30 E.E.O.C. v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 735 F.2d 69 (3d Cir. 1984) ............ 50 English v. General Electric Co., 496 U.S. 72, 110 S. Ct. 2270 (1990) ................... 36 Fitzgerald v. Barnstable School Committee, 555 U.S. 246, 129 S. Ct. 788 (2009) ............................................................................................. 2, 59, 63-65 Free v. Bland, 369