## Facts

- The Tennessee Department of Transportation sought to widen an intersection in Williamson County.
- An archaeological assessment on land to be acquired found two ancient graves and Native American artifacts.
- The State filed a chancery petition under Tenn. Code Ann. § 46-4-101 et seq. seeking permission to relocate the remains and discontinue use of the property as a burial ground.
- The Tennessee Commission of Indian Affairs, its executive director, and fifteen Native American individuals moved to intervene as “interested persons” to oppose relocation based on cultural and religious concerns.
- The State objected, asserting the intervenors were not “interested persons” under Tenn. Code Ann. § 46-4-102 because they did not claim kinship to the deceased or any legally recognized interest in the burial ground.
- The trial court allowed intervention as “interested persons,” disqualified the Attorney General from representing the Commission and its director, and appointed private counsel.
- The State obtained an extraordinary interlocutory appeal under Tenn. R. App. P. 10.

## Issues

1. Whether the Commission, its executive director, and the individual Native Americans qualified as “interested persons” under Tenn. Code Ann. § 46-4-102 in a burial-ground relocation proceeding.
2. Whether denying the individuals “interested person” status violated federal or state constitutional protections for free exercise and rights of conscience.
3. Whether the trial court erred by disqualifying the Tennessee Attorney General and Reporter from representing the Commission and its executive director.
4. Whether the trial court had authority to appoint private counsel for the Commission and its executive director.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals reversed and vacated the trial court’s orders and remanded.
- The Commission, its executive director, and the individual Native Americans did not meet the statutory requirements to participate as “interested persons” under Tenn. Code Ann. § 46-4-102.
- Excluding the individuals from “interested person” status did not violate the First Amendment or Tenn. Const. art. I, § 3.
- The trial court erred by disqualifying the Attorney General and Reporter from representing the Commission and its executive director.
- The trial court lacked authority to appoint private attorneys to represent the Commission in place of the Attorney General.

## Legal Principles

- When a statute defines who must be parties to a burial-ground closure or relocation proceeding, courts apply the definition as written and do not expand it to include persons asserting only cultural, religious, or generalized interests.
- Limiting party participation by a neutral, generally applicable statutory definition does not, without more, substantially burden religious exercise or violate state rights-of-conscience protections.
- The Attorney General and Reporter is the State’s chief legal officer and ordinarily represents state agencies; differing policy views among state entities do not alone create a disqualifying conflict.
- Absent statutory authorization or a legally sufficient basis to disqualify the Attorney General, a trial court may not appoint private counsel to represent a state agency.

## Conclusion

The appellate court held that Tenn. Code Ann. § 46-4-102 restricts “interested person” status in burial-relocation proceedings to the statute’s specified categories, that exclusion of culturally and religiously concerned individuals did not violate constitutional protections, and that the trial court improperly displaced the Attorney General and appointed private counsel for a state agency.


State ex rel. Comm’r of Transp. v. Medicine Bird Black Bear White Eagle, 63 S.W.3d 734 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001)