Filed Date: Dec. 9, 2009
Closed Date: Dec. 22, 2017
Clearinghouse coding complete
On December 9, 2009, the Native American Council of Tribes and current and former Native American inmates in the South Dakota State Penitentiary filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota. Native American inmates in the South Dakota State Penitentiary were forbidden from using tobacco in their Native American rituals and ceremonies. Therefore, they sought declaratory and injunctive relief under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), the American Indian Religious Freedom Act, 42 U.S.C. §1996, international law, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging a violation of due process and their First Amendment right to free exercise of religion. Plaintiffs alleged that there were other, less restrictive means that the South Dakota State Penitentiary could accomplish their goals.
The United States filed a Statement of the Interest with the Court on July 16, 2012, stating that the defendant’s arguments were a request for the court to determine the importance and centrality of tobacco to Plaintiff’s religious practices. This was a problem because under common law and the RLUIPA, courts are forbidden from inquiring into the centrality of beliefs to religions.
In response to a motion for summary judgment brought by the defendants on February 22, 2011, the Court (Judge Karen E. Schreier) decided that Plaintiffs did not have a cause of action under the American Indian Religious Freedom Act. Furthermore, the court stated that Plaintiffs did not have claims under international law, as they did not create an independent cause of action for Plaintiffs. This left the First, Fourteenth, and RLUIPA claims for the jury to decide at trial.
The trial began on March 27, 2012. The Court concluded that the use of tobacco in Plaintiffs’ Native American ceremonies was protected by RLUIPA because Plaintiffs’ beliefs were sincerely held and because the practice of using tobacco was part of their religious tradition. Furthermore, the Court held that the ban on tobacco was a substantial burden to Plaintiffs because tobacco was an “essential and fundamental part of Plaintiffs’ religious exercise.” The Court also held that there was not a compelling government interest in the ban of tobacco and, even if there was, a total ban was not the least restrictive means as required by RLUIPA. 897 F. Supp. 2d 828.
On January 25, 2013, the District Court ordered a remedial order that limited the amount of tobacco to be 1% of the total mixture used for religious ceremonies. This was in accordance with the statements of one of the plaintiffs who argued that it did not matter how much tobacco was in the mixture, but rather that tobacco was present in the mixture. 2013 WL 310633.
The Plaintiffs were then granted attorneys’ fees in the amount of $75,350.87.
The Defendants appealed the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on February 25, 2013. On April 24, 2014 the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit upheld the District Court’s decision for the same reasons asserted by the District Court. 750 F.3d 742. On January 7, 2016 the Eight Circuit denied the defendants’ petition for rehearing en banc.
On July 5, 2016, the Court determined that Plaintiffs’ motion to amend the remedial order was an attempt to add claims to the case rather than amend. Therefore, the plaintiffs’ motions were denied.
On August 9, 2017, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion to modify the remedial order because there was not a significant change in the facts or law. The Court also denied Plaintiff's motion for TRO to prohibit defendants from banning tobacco in religious ceremonies, finding that the claim is moot because that relief was already included in the Court's original order. Finally, the Court denied the Plaintiff's motion to amend their complaint because the case was already decided on its merits. The case is now closed.
Summary Authors
Cianan Lesley (10/8/2017)
Mary Kate Sickel (3/26/2018)
Justin Hill (5/24/2020)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4381990/parties/native-american-council-of-tribes-v-weber/
Bright, Myron H. (North Dakota)
Bye, Kermit Edward (North Dakota)
Anderson, April J. (District of Columbia)
Deerinwater, Verlin Hughes (District of Columbia)
Gonzalez, Mario (South Dakota)
Anderson, April J. (District of Columbia)
Deerinwater, Verlin Hughes (District of Columbia)
Gonzalez, Mario (South Dakota)
Gross, Mark L. (District of Columbia)
Mygatt, Timothy D (District of Columbia)
Parsons, Ronald A. Jr. (South Dakota)
Perez, Thomas E. (District of Columbia)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4381990/native-american-council-of-tribes-v-weber/
Last updated Dec. 6, 2025, 3:49 a.m.
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
DOJ Civil Rights Division Statements of Interest
Multi-LexSum (in sample)
Key Dates
Filing Date: Dec. 9, 2009
Closing Date: Dec. 22, 2017
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Plaintiffs were Native American Inmates in the South Dakota State Penitentiary.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Non-profit religious organization
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Defendant Type(s):
Facility Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Religious Freedom Rest. Act/Religious Land Use and Inst. Persons Act (RFRA/RLUIPA)
Constitutional Clause(s):
Other Dockets:
District of South Dakota 4:09-cv-04182
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit 0:13-01401
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit 0:13-02745
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff
Relief Granted:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Content of Injunction:
Amount Defendant Pays: $75,350.80
Issues
General/Misc.:
Discrimination Basis:
Affected Race(s):