members had aligned with what they refer to as “common-sense” gun control efforts. The militant gun control movement, however, splintered into extremist and middle-ground factions within their own ranks. The NRA generally holds that the criminals create gun violence, not the 48 percent of the electorate who constitute law-abiding gun owners. FURTHER READINGS LaPierre, Wayne R. 2002. Shooting Straight: Telling the Truth about Guns in America. Washington, D.C.: Regnery. National Rifle Association. Available online at http://www. nra.org/ (accessed May 18, 2009). National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action. Available online at http://www.nraila.org/ (accessed May 18, 2009). Patrick, Brian Anse. 2002. The National Rifle Association and the Media: The Motivating Force of Negative Coverage. New York: Peter Lang. Rodengen, Jeffrey L. 2002. NRA: An American Legend. Fort Lauderdale: Write Stuff Enterprises. CROSS REFE RENCES Gun Control; Libertarian Party. NATIONAL RIGHT TO LIFE COMMITTEE The National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) is a nonprofit organization that seeks to end legalized ABORTION in the United States. The NRLC was founded in 1973 following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in ROE V. WADE, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S. Ct. 705, 35 L. Ed. 2d 147 (1973), which held that women had a constitutional right to abortion. The NRLC has since become the leading antiabortion organization in the United States. It has more than seven million members, with more than 3,000 local chapters and 50 state affiliates. It is headquartered in Washington, D.C., and has an annual budget of more than $9 million. The National Right to Life News, a biweekly newsletter, has a circula- tion of nearly 400,000. From its inception, the NRLC has sought the passage of a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT banning abortion. Though this effort has not been successful, the NRLC has played an important role in state and federal legislation regulating and restricting abortion, and has been instrumental in restricting government funding of abortions to poor women. The NRLC has a POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE that endorses and campaigns for candidates who support its agenda, which includes opposition to some forms of BIRTH CONTROL as well as physician-assisted SUICIDE. The committee states that it does not take a position on issues such as contraception, sex education, CAPITAL PUNISH- MENT , and national defense. For a number of years, the NRLC lobbied for the passage of federal legislation banning partial-birth abortions. In 1996 and 1997 President BILL CLINTON vetoed partial-birth bills that Congress had passed twice. In 2003 Congress approved the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, Pub. L. No. 108-105, 117 Stat. 1201, and President GEORGE W. BUSH signed the bill into law. Three federal circuits reviewed the law and determined that it was unconstitutional under ROE V. WADE and later abortion cases. The SUPREME COURT reviewed the law and determined that it w as constitutional. In Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124, 127 S. Ct. 1610, 167 L. Ed. 2d 480 (2007), the court determined that the law did not impose an undue burden on a woman’s right to an abortion. NRLC operates four outreach programs: National Teens for Life, American Victims of Abortion, National Pro-Life Religious Council, and Black Americans for Life. National Teens for Life organizes various activities for its teenage members, including speaking in schools and to youth groups, volunteering in crisis pregnancy centers, peer counseling, debating, and helping adult groups work to pass legislation. American Victims of Abortion is comprised of women who have had an abortion. This group lobbies legislators and seeks to educate the media about the physical and emotional risks associated with abortion. The National Pro-Life Religious Council seeks “to articulate the historic Judeo- Christian perspective concerning human life issues,” and “to support efforts that discour- age and prevent acts that dehumanize and harm women, the unborn, DISABLED PERSONS,the elderly, and those who are medically depen- dent.” Black Americans for Life attempts to discourage Afr ican American women from having abortions. The NRLC political action committee spends millions supporting pro-life candidates in state and federal elections. The committee spent more than $2 million during the 1996 elections. In 1999, NLRC opposition to cam- paign finance reform caused a divisive split between the NLRC and pro-life Democrats who accused the organization of becoming increas- ingly identified with the REPUBLICAN PARTY.NRLC supported Bush’s nominations of JOHN ROBERTS and SAMUEL ALITO to the Supreme Court in 2005. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 208 NATIONAL RIGHT TO LIFE COMMITTEE FURTHER READINGS Grunwald, Michael. 1999. “Campaign Finance Issue Divides Abortion Foes.” Washington Post (September 14). National Right to Life Committee. Available online at http:// www.nrlc.org (accessed May 18, 2009). National Right to Life Political Action Committee. Available online at http://www.nrlpac.org/ (accessed May 18, 2009). CROSS REFERENCES Abortion; Fetal Rights; Women’s Rights. NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL The National Security Council (NSC) is the U.S. president’s principal forum for considering national security and foreign policy matters; the council consists of senior national security advisors and cabinet officials. Since its inception under President HARRY TRUMAN, the function of the NSC has been to advise and assist the president on national security and foreign policies. The council also serves as the pre- sident’s principal arm for coordinating these policies among various government agencies. The NSC was established by the National Security Act of 1947, as amended (50 U.S.C.A. § 402), and was placed in the Executive Office of the President by REORGANIZATION PLAN No. 4 of 1949 (5 U.S.C.A. app.). The NSC was designed to provide the president with a foreign-policy instrument independent of the STATE DEPARTMENT. The NSC is chaired by the president. Its statutory members, in addition to the president, include the VICE PRESIDENT and the secretaries of state and defense. The chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is the statutory military advisor to the council, and the director of the CENTRAL INTELLI- GENCE AGENCY (CIA) is the statutory intelligence advisor. Soon after BARACK OBAMA took office in 2009, he substantially reorganized the NSC by adding several members to the council. Under Obama’s directive are the ATTORNEY GENERAL, secretaries of energy and homeland security, and the U.S. representative to the UNITED NATIONS . Presidents typically change the struc- ture of the NSC when they take office, though Obama’s reorganization was the most expansive change. Under Obama’s direc tive, the national security adviser sets the NSC agenda. Policy- making principals may be invited to NSC meetings as needed. The NSC began as a small office supporting the president, but its staff has grown over the years. The national security advisor heads this staff, and the NSC staff performs a variety of activities for both the president and the national security advisor. The staff participates in presi- dential briefings, assists the president in respond- ing to congressional inquiries, and prepares public remarks. The NSC staff serves as an initial point of contact for departments and agencies that want to bring a national security issue to the president’s attention. The staff also participates in interagency working groups organized to assess policy issues in coordinated fashion. The issues concerning national security are wide ranging. Foreign and military relations with other countries have generally taken center stage, but international TERRORISM, narcotics control, and world economic issues have been brought before the NSC. In most administra- tions, the national security advisor has played a key role in formulating foreign policy. For example, as natio nal security advisor during the Nixon administration, HENRY KISSINGER was the de facto SECRETARY OF STATE, developing policy on the VIETNAM WAR, the opening of relations with communist China, and negotiating with Israel and the Arab nations for a peaceful solution to problems in the Middle East. The NSC has been involved in U.S. foreign policy decisions that have ranged from sending troops to Panama in 1989 and to Iraq in 1991 and 2003, as well as dealing with such issues as international trafficking in ille gal drugs, U.N. peacekeeping missions, strategic ARMS CONTROL policy, and global environmental affairs. The NSC has also been involved in interagency task forces. In 2002, for instance, the NSC and the HOMELAND SECURITY DEPARTMENT were both involved in a task force to study the threats posed to commercial aircraft by shoulder-fired missiles. The image of the NSC was tarnished in the 1980s during the Reagan administration. Two successive national security advisors, Robert C. McFarlane and Rear Admiral John M. Poindexter, and NSC staffer Lieutenant Colonel Oliver L. North participated in the IRAN-CONTRA AFFAIR. They violated a congressional ban on U.S. military aid to the Nicaraguan anticommunist Contra rebels by providing the rebels with funds obtained by the secret sale of military weapons to Iran. Under the administration of President GEORGE H.W. BUSH in the early 1990s, the NSC GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL 209 was reorganized to include a Principals Com- mittee, Deputies Committee, and eight Policy Coordinating Committees. Under President BILL CLINTON , NSC membership was expanded to include the secretary of the treasury, the U.S representative to the United Nations, and the assistant to the president for economic policy as well as the president’s chief of staff and his national security advisor. In 2001 President GEORGE W. BUSH appointed Dr. Condoleezza Rice to be his national security advisor. She was the first woman appointed to that position. When Rice became secretary of state in 2005, she was replaced by her deputy, Stephen John Hadley. In addition to adding members to the NSC, Obama created an elaborate system of commit- tees to conduct reviews and provide assessments and reports. Under Obama’s directive, national security orders fall into one of two categories: presidential policy directives and presidential study directives. The study directives are designed to initiate and direct policy reviews. FURTHER READINGS DeYoung, Karen. 2009. “National Security Structure Is Set.” Washington Post. National Security Council at the White House. Available online at http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/ eop/nsc/ (accessed May 19, 2009). U.S. Government Manual Website. Available online at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/gmanual/ (accessed May 19, 2009). CROSS REFE RENCES Executive Branch; Presidential Powers; State Department. NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD The Nati onal Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) is a federal investigatory board head- quartered in Washington, D.C., whose mandate is to ensure safe public transportation. Estab- lished in 1966 as part of the DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION , the NTSB investigates accidents, conducts studies, and makes recommendations to federal agencies and the transportation industry. It is chiefly known for its highly visible role in civil aviation accidents, which it has sole authority under federal law to investi- gate. Additionally, the NTSB probes certain marine accidents and accidents that occur in the use of railroads, highways, and pipelines. The five members of the board are appointed by the president. The NTSB grew out of the long history of federal oversight of aviation. As early as 1926, Congress required the investigation of civil aviation crashes under the Air Commerce Act, Pub. L. No. 69-254, 44 Stat. 568. Over the next three decades, lawmakers created a maze of regulatory agencies, including the Civil AERONAU- TICS Authority and the FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINIS- TRATION (FAA). The Federal Aviation Act of 1958, Pub. L. No. 85-726, 72 Stat. 731, gave duties for investigating accidents to the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB), intending for the board to study aircraft and the actions of their pilots in the hopes of preventing future disasters. As the airline industry grew, Congress reorganized its regulatory scheme. With passage of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Pub. L. No. 89-670, 80 Stat. 935, lawmakers created the NTSB within the Department of Transportation and gave it the responsibilities formerly held by the CAB. However, the NTSB often ended up conducting investigations of the FAA. In 1974, in an attempt to avoid conflicts between agencies, Congress made the NTSB an independent board by passing the Independent Safety Board Act of 1974, 49 U.S.C.A. app. § 1901 (2006). The act gives the NTSB sole responsibility for investi- gating airline crashes. The investigatory powers of the NTSB are quite broad. Once its teams are dispatched to the site of an accident, they maintain exclusiv e control over the scene. Their authority includes seizing all evidence for examination, including an airline’s flight recorder (the so-called “black box”). They can al so bar other parties from their proceedings—an important element of autonomy given the inevitable LITIGATION that follows airline accidents. In subsequent stages of an investigation, the NTSB is empowered to demand records, testimony, and other informa- tion from airline officials. The purpose of its work is to prepare public reports of two types: factual reports and interpretive analyses of accidents to determine their PROBABLE CAUSE. In some circumstances, other gover nmental units may take over certain investigations. For instance, following the SEPTEMBER 11TH ATTACKS in 2001, the FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (FBI) assumed primary jurisdiction over the investigation of the attacks. The FBI requested the NTSB’s technical assistance during this investigation, but the NTSB did not have end responsibility. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 210 NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD The use of NTSB rep orts in court is controversial. Under federal law they are intended to be used to prevent future accidents from occurring, and, therefore, they are released to the public. But to a certain extent they are forbidden by law from being used in civil lawsuits. Some form of this rule has been in effect since the creation of the CAB in 1958. Section 1441(e) of the Independent Safety Board Act of 1974 stated, “No part of any report or reports of the National Transportation Safety Board relating to any accident or the investigation thereof, shall be admitted as evidence or used in any suit or action for damages growing out of any matter mentioned in such report or rep orts.” However, courts have permitted civil litigants to use some NTSB report material, and the regulations have changed in response. Only the so-called proba- ble cause reports are strictly impermissible in civil lawsuits, and NTSB employees are permit- ted only to testify as to factual matters surrounding their investi gations. These limita- tions have upset some attorneys who argue that civil litigants should have full access to all NTSB data, but defenders have argued that the standard is necessary to protect the board’s autonomy. National Transportation Safety Board Office of Chief Financial Officer Office of General Counsel Quality Assurance Division Strategic Management Division Budget & Planning Division Financial Analysis & Reporting Division Public Affairs Training Center Safety & Security Office of Management Office of Equal Employment Opportunity Office of Government & Industry Affairs Office of Research & Engineering Safety Studies & Statistical Analysis Materials Laboratory Division Vehicle Recorders Division Vehicle Performance Division Office of Railroad, Pipeline, and Hazardous Materials Investigations Railroad Division Pipeline and HazMat Division Atlanta Regional Office Chicago Regional Office Los Angeles Regional Office Human Performance & Survival Factors Division Report Development Division Office of Marine Safety Investigations Division – Team A Investigations Division – Team B Investigations Division – Team C Office of Aviation Safety Major Investigations Division Operational Factors Division Aviation Engineering Division Human Performance & Survival Factors Division Regional Operations Writing and Editing Division Office of Safety Recommendations and Advocacy Safety Advocacy Division Office of Transport- ation Disaster Assistance Safety Recommendations Division Eastern Region Western Pacific Region Central Region Alaska Region Office of Administrative Law Judges Office of Administration Administrative Services Division Acquisition Division Human Resources Division Member Vice Chairman Chairman Member Member Office of Highway Safety Investigations Division East Team West Team Report Development Division Office of Chief Information Officer System Support Division Records Management Division Computer Services Division Communications Center ILLUSTRATION BY GGS CREATIVE RESOURCES. REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION OF GALE, A PART OF CENGAGE LEARNING. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3 RD E DITION NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD 211 Since its creation in 1967, the NTSB has investigated more than 124,000 aviation acci- dents and more than 10,000 surface transporta- tion accidents. The organization has issued more than 12,000 recommendations regarding transportation safety to more than 2,200 recipients. Many of these recommendations became the basis for safety features incorpo- rated into surface, air, and water vehicles. Since 1990, the NTSB has highlighted various issues such as protecting child passengers, use of SEAT BELTS , and recreational boating safety in its “Most Wanted” list of transportation safety improvements. NTSB investigators are on call 24 hours per day, 365 days per year, traveling throughout the United States and all over the world to investigate major accid ents. FURTHER READINGS National Transportation Safety Board. Available online at http://www.ntsb.gov/ (accessed May 18, 2009). U.S. Government Manual Website. Available online at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/gmanual/ (accessed May 18, 2009). CROSS REFE RENCES Airlines; Federal Aviatio n Administration. NATIONAL URBAN LEAGUE The National Urban League, more commonly known as the Urban League, is a nonprofit, multiracial organization that is dedicated to the elimination of racial segregation and discrimina- tion and to the enhancement of economic and educational opportunities for African Americans throughout the United States. The Urban League, which was founded in 1910 and is headquartered in New York City, has more than 100 affiliates in 34 states and the District of Columbia. In 1896 the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, 16 S. Ct. 1138, 41 L. Ed. 256 (1896), w hich held that “separate but equal” accommodations for blacks and whites was constitutional, led to an oppressive system of SEGREGATION in the South in which so-called JIM CROW LAWS barred blacks from certain schools, jobs, and many public places, including hotels, bars, and restaurants. The early 1900s saw the beginnings of a migration of blacks from the rural South moving North to find better jobs and economic stability for their families. Upon arriving in the northern states, however, many blacks found themselves still excluded from decent housing, jobs, and education. These mostly rural people were bewildered by the customs and mores of urban living. Realizing that these newcomers desper- ately needed help, the Committee on Urban Conditions among Negroes was established in New York City on September 29, 1910. In 1911 the committee merged with two other organizations to form the National League on Urban Conditions among Negroes. The organization began by counseling black migrants and training black social workers but soon expanded its activ ities into such areas as housing, employment, education, recreation, and health and sanitation. By the end of WORLD WAR I , the organization had 81 staff members working in New York and in affiliates that had been established in 30 other cities. In 1919 the organization became known as the National Urban League. During the Great Depression, the Urban League crusaded for the INTEGRATION of blacks into segregated labor unions and for inclusion in President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s NEW DEAL programs that were aimed at fostering eco- nomic recovery. During WORLD WAR II the League fought for integration of the trade unions, particularly those involved in defense work and in the ARMED SERVICES. After the war it worked with businesses to train black workers for various trades and to encourage Fortune 500 companies to participate in job fairs held on black college campuses. In 1942 Mollie L. Moon started the first Urban League Guild in New York City. Guild members were volunteers who helped League efforts and promoted its programs. The guild placed particular emphasis on information, fund-raising, and leadership development. The activities of the New York Gui ld were so productive that many others were starte d by Urban League affiliates. In 1952 the National Council of Guilds was established. In 2003 the National Council oversaw the work of guilds in more than 85 cities. In 1961 Whitney M. Young Jr. became the League’s executive director. Under Young’s leadership the organization grew from 60 chapters to 98, and numerous large American corporations and foundations made contribu- tions that supported job and housing programs as well as other social welfare programs. Young’s ten-point program calling for federal GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 212 NATIONAL URBAN LEAGUE funding to help reduce poverty among blacks became the basis for President Lyndon John- son’s War on Poverty program, which was aimed at reducing poverty for all Americans. In 1972 Vernon E. Jordan Jr. became the League’s fifth executive director. Jordan oversaw a number of new initiatives in the areas of business development, housing, and education. He established the League as a major channel for passing federal funds to urban community programs and services. He also emphasized voter registration and programs dealing with energy conservation, protection of the environ- ment, and new job roles for wome n. John Jacob, who expanded the League’s mission and established the Permanent Devel- opment Fund, succeeded Jordan in 1982. Jacob advocated for programs to fight crime in black neighborhoods, to reduce teenage pregnancies, and to help single parents. In 1994 Jacob was succeeded by Hugh B. Price, an attorney who emphasized affirmative action, economic empowerment, and the importance of diversity in an increasingly multi-ethnic society. In 2000 the League recast its Washington Operations Office as the Institute for Opportu- nity and Equality. The Institute conducts research, analyzes policy, and advocates for significant issues, including employment, crim- inal justice, community development, and economic policy. In 2003 the board of trustees appointed former New Orleans mayor Marc H. Morial as the League’s eighth preside nt and chief execu- tive officer. In his first year, Morial worked to streamline the organization’s headquarters, secured over $10 million in new funding to support affiliate programs, created the first Legislative Policy Conference, revamped the State of Black America report, created profitabil- ity for the annual conference, and secured a $127.5 million equity fund for the minority businesses through the new markets tax credit program. By 2009 the League’s efforts had expanded to include fighting childhood obesity and seeking ways for racial minorities to avoid home foreclosures. FURTHER READINGS Moore, Jesse Thomas. 1981. A Search for Equality: The National Urban League, 1910–1961. University Park: Pennsylvania State Univ. Press. National Urban League. Available at www.nul.org (accessed July 7, 2009). CROSS REFERENCES Civil Rights Acts; Civil Rights Movement; Discrimination; Equal Rights; NAACP. NATIONALITY See ALIENS. NATIVE AMERICAN GRAVES PROTECTION AND REPATRIATION ACT OF 1990 Years of the U.S. government granting a free hand to those who wished to examine Native American remains came to an end with the passage of the Native American Graves Protec- tion and Repatriation Act of 1990 (NAGPRA) (25 U.S.C. § 3001 et seq.). This act marks a reversal of previous U.S. government policies, not only providing protection for Native American burial sites but also helping Native Americans take possession of the remains of their ancestors currently in the hands of museums and other scientific institutions. The law supports the idea that Native Americans have the right to determine the proper disposal of the remains of their ancestors, although it has come under some criticism by the scientific community for its potential to stifle research into ancient American tribes. Among the many contentious issues that have afflicted the relationship between Native Americans and the U.S. government, none has been more difficult than the issue of the remains of Native American tribes. The U.S. government has traditionally seen these remains as worthy of archeological and scientific study and has afforded wide la titude to those who want to examine them. In contrast, Native Americans tend to see the archeologists and museums who have dug up and taken posses- sion of these remains over the years as little more than “grave robbers”and have demanded that the burial places of their ancestors be respected. The law’s origin lies in the CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT of the 1960s and its effect on Native Americans, who began advocating for changes to American laws that they saw as promoting a disrespect for their culture. Among the most egregious examples was the Antiquities Preser- vation Act of 1906, which made almost all Native American burial sites into “objects of antiquity” or “archaeological resources” and in effect gave the federal government the right to GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION NATIVE AMERICAN GRAVES PROTECTION AND REPATRIATION ACT OF 1990 213 determine their fate. This became unacceptable to Native Americans, and in response to their complaints, the federal government passed the 1979 Archaeological Resource Protection Act, (16 U.S.C. § 470aa-470ii), which made it more difficult to excavate on Native American lands, and the 1989 National Museum of the Ameri- can Indian Act (20 U.S.C.A. § 80q), which required the Smithsonian Institute to repatriate remains to tribes that could show that they were related to the remains. But Native American groups saw these laws as inadequate, so in 1990 Congress passed the sweeping Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. The constitutionality of the act was upheld in U.S. v. Corrow, 119 F.3d 796 (10th Cir.: 1997). NAGPRA for the first time establishes that the ownership or control of Native American cultural items, including remains that are excavated or discovered on federal or tribal lands, shall rest with the Native American tribes themselves. Priority is given first to the lineal descendants of the Native American whose remain s were discovered, or in any case in w hich such lineal descendants cannot be ascertained, in the Native American tribe on whose tribal land such objects or remains were discovered; and then to the Native American tribe that has the closest cultural affiliation with such remains or objects and which, upon notice, states a claim for such remains or objects. If the cultural affiliation of the objects cannot be reasonably ascertained, and if the objects were discovered on federal land that is recognized by a final judgment of the Indian Claims Commission or the U.S. COURT OF CLAIMS as the aboriginal land of an Indian tribe, the title (ownership) will go to the Native American tribe that is recognized as occupying the area in which the objects were discovered, if the tribe states a claim for such remain s or objects. However, if it can be shown by a preponderance of the evidence that a different tribe has a stronger cultural relationship with the remains or objects than the tribe or organization that currently occupies the area, then title to the remains will go to the tribe that has the strongest demonstrated relationship. In addition, NAGPRA requires federal agencies and each museum that has possession or control over holdings or collections of Native American human remains to compile an inventory of such items and, to the extent possible based on information possessed by such mu seum or federal agency, identify the geographical and cultural affiliation of such items. The agency or museum must supply notice to any tribe that it finds to be affiliated with the remains. The agency and museum must repatriate any items where a claim has been established by known lineal descendant of the Native American or of the tribe; or where a cultural affiliation is shown by a preponderance of the evidence based upon geographical, kinship, biological, archaeological, anthropolog- ical, linguistic, folkloric, oral traditional, histor- ical, or other relevant information or expert opinion. For unassociated funerary objects, sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony, the museum or agency must return such objects where the requesting party is the direct lineal descendant of an indiv idual who owned the sacred object, where the requesting Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization can show that the object was owned or controlled by the tribe or organization, or where the requesting Native American tribe can show that the sacred object was owned or controlled by a member, provided that in the case where a sacred object was owned by a member, there are no identifiable lineal descendants of that member, or the lineal descendants have failed to make a claim for the object. The only exception is that repatriation is not required of such items that are indispensable for completion of a specific scientific study, the outcome of which would be of major benefit to the United States. Such items shall be returned by no later than 90 days after the date on which the scientific study is co mpleted. Museums may also retain mate rial until competing claims are resolved, and they are protected against claims by aggrieved parties if objects are returned in GOOD FAITH. Finally, the law establishes a seven- member commission, three of whom must be from Native-American tribes, three of whom represent the scientific community, and one of whom is appointed by the secretary from a list approved by the other six members, for the purpose of resolving certain disputes under the legislation. Two of the three Native Americans appointed to this commission must be tradi- tional religious leaders. NAGPRA gives Native Americans control over their ancestors’ burial remains and ensures repatriation for remains and other sacred objects that currently reside in museums and with GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 214 NATIVE AMERICAN GRAVES PROTECTION AND REPATRIATION ACT OF 1990 federal agencies. It is an important milestone in the relationship between the United States and its Native American inhabitants. FURTHER READINGS Afrasiabi, Peter R. 1997. “Property Rights in Ancient Human Skeletal Remains.” Southern California Law Review 70. Canby, William. 2004 American Indian Law in a Nutshell. 4th ed. St. Paul, Minn.: West. Hibbert, Michelle. 1998/1999. “Galileos or Grave Robbers? Science, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, and the First Amendment.” American Indian Law Review 23. Platzman, Steven Winter. 1992. “Objects of Controversy: The Native American Right to Repatriation.” American University Law Review 41. NATIVE AMERICAN RIGHTS In the United States, persons of Native Ameri- can descent occupy a unique legal position. On the one hand, they are U.S. citizens and are entitled to the same legal rights and protections under the Constitution that all other U.S. citizens enjoy. On the other hand, they are members of self-governing tribes whose exis- tence far predates the arrival of Europeans on American shores. They are the descendants of peoples who had their own inherent rights— rights that required no validation or legitima- tion from the newcomers who found their way onto their soil. These combined, and in many ways conflict- ing, legal positions have resulted in a complex relationship between Native American tribes and the federal government. Although the historic events and specific details of each tribe’s situation vary considerably, the legal rights and status maintained by Native Americans are the result of their shared history of wrestling with the U.S. government over such issues as tribal sovereignty, shifting government policies, treaties that were made and often broken, and conflicting latter-day interpretations of those treaties. The result in the early twenty first century is that although Native Americans enjoy the same legal rights as every other U.S. citizen, they also retain unique rights in such areas as hunting and fishing, water use, and Indian Territory Texas Louisiana Arkansas Missouri Kansas Territory Mississippi Florida Alabama Georgia South Carolina North Carolina Tennessee Kentucky Illinois Virginia River A l a b a m a R i v e r T e n n e s s e e R i v e r M i s s i s s i p p i A r k a n s a R i v e r Gulf of Mexico ATLANTIC OCEAN Ft. Smith Ft. Mitchell Echota Ft. Coffee Ft. Towson Ft. Gibson 1835 1832 1832 1832 1830 N 0 100 200 mi. 0 100 200 km Trails of Tears Indian lands before relocation with dates of cession Fort Indian village Cherokee Chickasaw Choctaw Creek Seminole Converging routes Routes of Removal The route taken by Cherokees from southern Appalachia to Oklahoma in 1838 is called the Trail of Tears. Supreme Court decisions of that time called the native tribes “the rightful occupants of the soil” but also held that Europeans had “discovered” North America and had the right to “acquir[e] the soil from the natives.” GALE GROUP. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3 RD E DITION NATIVE AMERICAN RIGHTS 215 gaming operations. In general, these rights are based on the legal foundations of tribal sover- eignty, treaty provisions, and the “reserved rights” doctrine, which holds that Native Americans retain all rights not explicitly abrogated in treaties or other legislation. Tribal Sovereignty “Tribal sovereignty” refers to the fact that each tribe has the inherent right to govern itself. Before Europeans came to North America, Native American tribes conducted their own affairs and needed no outside source to legitimate their powers or actions. When the various European powers did arrive, however, they claimed dominion over the lands that they found, thus violating the sovereignty of the tribes who already were living there. The issue of the extent and limits of tribal sovereignty came before the U.S. SUPREME COURT in Johnson v. McIntosh, 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 543, 5 L. Ed. 681 (1823). Writing for the majority, Chief Justice JOHN MARSHALL described the effects of European incursion on native tribes, writing that although the Indians were “admitted to be the rightful occupants of the soil their rights to complete sovereignty, as independent nations, were necessarily diminished, and their power to dispose of the soil, at their own will, to whomsoever they pleased, was denied by the original fundamental principle, that discovery gave exclusive title to those who made it.” The European nations that had “discovered” North America, Marshall ruled, had “the sole right of acquiring the soil from the natives.” Having acknowledged this limitation to tribal sovereignty in Johnson, however, Marshall’s opinions in subsequent cases reinforced the principle of tribal sovereignty. In Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. (5 Pet.) 1, 8 L. Ed. 25 (1831), Marshall elaborated on the legal status of the Cherokees, describing the tribe as a “distinct political society that was separated from others, capable of managing its own affairs, and governing itself.” In Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 515, 8 L. Ed. 483 (1832), Ma rshall returned to the issue, this time in an opinion denying the state of Georgia ’s right to impose its laws on a Che rokee reser- vation within the state’s borders. He rejected the state’s argument, writing “The Cherokee nation is a distinct community, occupying its own territory, with boundaries accurately described, in which the laws of Georgia can have no force.” Reviewing the history of rela- tions between native tribes and the colonizing European powers, Marshall cited the Indians’ “original natural rights,” which he said were limited only by “the single exception of that imposed by irresistible power, which excluded them from intercourse with any other European potentate than the first discoverer of the coast of the particular region claimed.” The cumulative effect of Marshall’s opinions was to position Native American tribe s as nations whose independence had been limited in just two specific areas: the right to transfer land and the right to deal with foreign powers. In regard to their own internal functions, the tribes were consid ered to be sovereign and to be free from state intrusion on that sovereignty. This position formulated by Marshall has been modified over the years, but it continues to serve as the foundation for determining the extents and limits of Native American tribal sovereignty. Although Congress has the ultimate power to limit or abolish tribal governments, until it does so, each tribe retains the right to self-government, and no state may impose its laws on the reservation. This position was reiterated in a 1978 U.S. Supreme Court case, United States v. Wheeler, 435 U.S. 313, 98 S. Ct. 1079, 55 L. Ed. 2d 303, in which Justice POTTER STEWART concluded that “Indian tribes still possess those aspects of sovereignty not with- drawn by treaty or statute, or by implication as a necessary result of their dependent status.” The ways that individual tribes exercise their sovereignty vary widely, but, in general, tribal authority is used in the following areas: to form tribal governments; to determine tribal mem- bership; to regulate individual property; to levy and collect taxes; to maintain law and order; to exclude non-members from tribal territory; to regulate domestic relations; and to regulate commerce and trade. Treaty Rights From the time Europeans first arrived in North America, they needed goods and services from Native Americans in order to survive. Often, the terms of such exchanges were codified in treaties, which are contracts between sovereign nations. After the American Revolution, the federal government used treaties as its principal method for acquiring land from the Indians. From the first treaty with the Delawares in 1787 GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 216 NATIVE AMERICAN RIGHTS to the end of treaty making in 1871, the federal government signed more than 650 treaties with various Native American tribes. Although specific treaty elements varied, treaties com- monly included such provisions as a guarantee of peace; a cession of certain delineated lands; a promise by the United States to create a reservation for the Indians under federal pro- tection; a guarantee of Indian hunting and fishing rights; and a statement that the tribe recognized the authority or placed itself under the protection of the United States. Treaty making ended when Congress passed a rider to an Indian appropriations act providing, “No Indian nation or tribe shall be acknowl- edged or recognized as an independen t nation, tribe, or power with whom the United States may contract by treaty ” (25 U.S.C.A. § 71). This rider was passed largely in response to the House of Representatives’ frustration that it was excluded from Indian affairs because the constitutional power to make treaties rests exclusively with the SENATE. Since 1871, the federal government has regulated Native Amer- ican affairs through legislation, which does not require the conse nt of the Indians involved, as treaties do. Indian treaties may seem like historical documents, but the courts have consistently ruled that they retain the same legal force that they had when they were negotiated. Despite frequent challenges and intense opposition, courts have upheld guaranteed specific tribal rights, such as hunting and fishing rights. Often, disputes over treaty rights arise from conflicting interpretations of the specific language of treaty provisions. In general, there are three basic principles for interpreting treaty language. First, uncertainties in Indian treaties should be resolved i n favor of the Indians. Second, Indian treaties should be interpreted as the Indians signing the treaty would have understood them. Third, Indian treaties are to be liberally construed in favor of the Indians involved. Courts have consistently upheld these princ iples of treaty interpretation, which clearly favor the Indians, on the basis that Indian tribes were the much weaker party in treaty negotiations, signing documents written in a foreign language and often with little choice. Liberal interpreta- tion rules are designed to address the great inequality of the parties’ original bargaining positions. Reserved Rights Doctrine Another crucial factor in the interpretation of Native American treaties is what is known as the “reserved rights doctrine,” which holds that any rights that are not specifically addressed in a treaty are reserved to the tribe. In other words, treaties outline the specific rights that the tribes gave up, not those that they retained. The courts have consistently interpreted treaties in this fashion, beginning with United States v. Winans, 198 U.S. 371, 25 S. Ct. 662, 49 L. Ed. 1089 (1905), in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a treaty is “not a grant of rights to the Indians, but a grant of rights from them.” Any right not explicitly extinguished by a treaty or a federal statute is considered to be “reserved” to the tribe. Even when a tribe is officially “terminated” by Congress, it retains any and all rights that are not specifically mentioned in the termination statute. Federal Power over Native American Rights Although Native Americans have been held to have both inherent rights and rights guaranteed, either explicitly or implicitly, by treaties with the federal government, the government retains the ultimate power and authority to either abrogate or protect Native American rights. This power stems from several legal sources. One is the power that the Constitution gives to Congress to make regulations governing the territory belonging to the United States (Art. IV, Sec. 3, Cl. 2), and another is the president’s constitutional power to make treaties (Art. II, Sec. 2, Cl. 2). A more commonly cited source of federal power over Native American affairs is the COMMERCE CLAUSE of the U.S. Constitution, which provides that “Congress shall have the Power to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes” (Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 3). This clause has resulted in what is known as Congress’s “plenary power” over Indian affairs, which means that Congress has the ultimate right to pass legislation governing Native Americans, even when that legislation conflicts with or abrogates Indian treaties. The most well-known case supporting this congressional right is Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 553, 23 S. Ct. 216, 47 L. Ed. 299 (1903), in which Congress broke a treaty provision that had guaranteed that no more cessions of land would be made without the consent of three-fourths of GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION NATIVE AMERICAN RIGHTS 217 . Indians. From the first treaty with the Delawares in 178 7 GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 216 NATIVE AMERICAN RIGHTS to the end of treaty making in 1 871 , the federal government signed. RESOURCES. REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION OF GALE, A PART OF CENGAGE LEARNING. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3 RD E DITION NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD 211 Since its creation in 19 67, the NTSB has investigated. Affairs Training Center Safety & Security Office of Management Office of Equal Employment Opportunity Office of Government & Industry Affairs Office of Research & Engineering Safety Studies &