## Facts

- In 1978, twelve-year-old Daniel Ridlon found a Native American pottery object while hiking on Los Alamos County property in New Mexico.
- The object consisted of two sealed ancient bowls containing macaw feathers tied with yucca twine.
- Ridlon turned the object over to the Bradbury Museum, a federally funded museum operated by the Regents of the University of California, which possessed and displayed it continuously.
- In 1988, after the museum refused Ridlon’s demand for return, Ridlon sued the museum and Los Alamos County in state court for conversion and initially prevailed.
- The state court later vacated its judgment, allowed the Pueblo of San Ildefonso to intervene based on a claimed right to repatriation under NAGPRA, and Los Alamos County assigned its asserted rights in the object to the Pueblo.
- The state court dismissed without prejudice after concluding it lacked jurisdiction over the NAGPRA claim.
- The Pueblo filed a federal action seeking repatriation under NAGPRA, protection of a claimed property interest under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, and declaratory relief.
- The district court treated Ridlon’s summary-judgment motion as a Rule 12(b)(1) motion and dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, also declining supplemental jurisdiction over state-law ownership issues.

## Issues

1. Whether NAGPRA creates a federal cause of action and supports federal question jurisdiction for a tribe seeking repatriation of cultural items held by a museum.
2. Whether NAGPRA’s text and remedial structure imply a private right of action to enforce tribal repatriation rights in federal court.

## Decision

- The Tenth Circuit vacated the dismissal and remanded.
- The court held that NAGPRA creates a federal cause of action sufficient to support subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
- Because the NAGPRA jurisdictional ruling controlled the appeal, the court did not reach the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo theory or other grounds.

## Legal Principles

- A claim seeking repatriation based on rights created by NAGPRA arises under federal law and may be heard under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
- Even without an express private right-of-action clause, a federal statute may imply a cause of action when its text and structure create enforceable rights and impose duties on regulated entities.
- NAGPRA’s detailed duties imposed on museums and agencies, repatriation procedures, and enforcement scheme indicate congressional intent that tribes have a judicial means to enforce repatriation rights.
- Administrative penalty authority under NAGPRA does not, by itself, bar judicial actions seeking repatriation or declaratory relief.

## Conclusion

The Tenth Circuit reinstated the Pueblo’s NAGPRA suit, holding that NAGPRA implies a federal cause of action and therefore supplies federal question jurisdiction for tribal repatriation claims against museums, leaving merits and ownership questions for proceedings on remand.


Pueblo of San Ildefonso v. Ridlon, 103 F.3d 936 (10th Cir. 1996)