## Facts

- Geronimo, a Chiricahua Apache leader, died in 1909 and was buried at Fort Sill, an Army installation in Oklahoma.
- Michael Idrogo and Americans for Repatriation of Geronimo (ARG) sued the U.S. Army seeking an order compelling repatriation of Geronimo’s remains under the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA).
- NAGPRA authorizes repatriation claims primarily by (1) lineal descendants of the deceased and (2) federally recognized tribes (or Native Hawaiian organizations) with the required cultural affiliation.
- Idrogo claimed to be a “direct descendant” of Geronimo but alleged little genealogical support, relying largely on asserted similarities such as physical traits and Spanish-language ability.
- Idrogo was not a member of a federally recognized tribe, and ARG was not a tribe or tribal organization.
- The Army moved to dismiss, arguing plaintiffs lacked Article III standing and were outside the class NAGPRA authorizes to seek repatriation.

## Issues

1. Whether Idrogo and ARG had Article III standing to seek repatriation under NAGPRA, including whether Idrogo adequately alleged he was a lineal descendant.
2. Whether plaintiffs’ asserted interests fell within the zone of interests protected by NAGPRA’s repatriation provisions.

## Decision

- The court granted the Army’s motion to dismiss.
- The court held that Idrogo and ARG lacked standing to sue under NAGPRA.
- The court concluded Idrogo did not plausibly allege the type of lineal descendant relationship contemplated by NAGPRA.
- The court held ARG lacked standing because it was neither a lineal descendant nor a qualifying tribal entity.
- The court ruled plaintiffs’ interests were outside NAGPRA’s protected zone of interests, so they had no cognizable statutory basis to demand repatriation.

## Legal Principles

- Article III standing requires a concrete, particularized injury that is actual or imminent, traceable to the defendant, and redressable by the court.
- When a statute creates repatriation rights for specified beneficiaries, only those beneficiaries (or entities authorized by the statute) generally can claim a legally protected interest sufficient for standing.
- Under NAGPRA’s repatriation framework, the parties positioned to suffer a cognizable legal injury from noncompliance are lineal descendants and culturally affiliated, federally recognized tribal organizations (or analogous entities specified by the statute).
- Generalized moral, historical, or advocacy interests in repatriation do not, without the statutory relationship required by NAGPRA, supply a legally protected interest for Article III or zone-of-interests purposes.
- Conclusory assertions of ancestry unsupported by facts indicating a cognizable genealogical link are insufficient to plead lineal-descendant status under NAGPRA.

## Conclusion

The court dismissed the NAGPRA repatriation suit for lack of constitutional and statutory standing because the plaintiffs were not qualifying lineal descendants or authorized tribal claimants, and their asserted interests fell outside the group NAGPRA’s repatriation provisions were designed to protect.


Idrogo v. U.S. Army, 18 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 1998)