## Facts

- Native Hawaiian human remains were disinterred from burial sites on the Mokapu Peninsula, Oʻahu, and held by the U.S. Navy.
- In 1992, the Navy contracted with the Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum to prepare a NAGPRA inventory of the Mokapu remains, including identifying associated funerary objects and determining a minimum number of individuals.
- When the contract was executed, final federal regulations and Interior inventory guidelines for NAGPRA inventories had not yet been issued.
- The Museum met with Hui Mālama I Nā Kūpuna O Hawaiʻi Nei regarding the inventory process and progress.
- Hui Mālama, acting as “guardian” for the remains and on behalf of the remains themselves, sued the Secretary of the Navy and the Museum, alleging unlawful handling and inventory practices and asserting that improper scientific study occurred.
- Plaintiffs initially sought repatriation, but later withdrew that claim, leaving only challenges to the legality of the inventory process and related handling.

## Issues

1. Whether human remains, suing “through guardians,” have Article III standing or legal capacity to sue under federal law in this context.
2. Whether NAGPRA provides an express or implied private right of action to enforce inventory-related duties against a federal agency.
3. If review proceeds under the APA, whether the Navy’s inventory-related actions were arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or contrary to law, including claims of unauthorized study.

## Decision

- The court granted summary judgment for the Secretary of the Navy and denied plaintiffs’ cross-motion for partial summary judgment on the remaining count.
- The court held that the human remains were not legal persons with standing to sue, and the asserted “guardian” theory did not supply standing on the remains’ behalf.
- The court concluded NAGPRA did not create the type of private right of action plaintiffs invoked to challenge the agency’s inventory implementation in district court.
- Treating the claim as an APA challenge, the court found the Navy’s use of the Bishop Museum to conduct an inventory—amid a regulatory gap—was a reasonable approach to comply with NAGPRA and was not arbitrary or contrary to law.
- The court determined the inventory-related handling described in the record did not amount to unlawful, unauthorized scientific research under the applicable statutory and administrative framework.

## Legal Principles

- Article III standing requires a cognizable plaintiff; human remains are not legal persons capable of suing absent a clear statutory authorization.
- NAGPRA’s text and structure do not supply a general, free-standing private right of action to enforce inventory-related agency duties in federal court.
- Where a statute lacks an express cause of action, challenges to federal agency compliance may proceed, if at all, under the APA’s arbitrary-and-capricious standard.
- In assessing agency implementation of newly enacted statutory duties, courts may uphold reasonable compliance choices made in the absence of finalized regulations or detailed agency guidelines.

## Conclusion

The court rejected the attempt to litigate in the name of human remains and held that NAGPRA did not authorize the asserted private enforcement suit; reviewed under the APA, the Navy’s inventory process using the Bishop Museum was a reasonable and lawful effort to meet NAGPRA’s requirements.


Na Iwi O Na Kupuna O Mokapu v. Dalton, 894 F. Supp. 1397 (D. Haw. 1995)