## Facts

- Jim Thorpe, an Olympian and member of the Sac and Fox Nation of Oklahoma, died in 1953 without a will.
- His third wife, as estate successor, arranged for his remains to be buried in Pennsylvania, over objections from several of his children.
- Two Pennsylvania towns merged and renamed themselves the Borough of Jim Thorpe, which maintained a memorial site containing Thorpe’s grave and commemorative features.
- Some of Thorpe’s children and the Sac and Fox Nation sought reburial on tribal land in Oklahoma.
- Plaintiffs sued under the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), alleging the borough’s custody of the remains triggered statutory duties to repatriate.
- The district court treated the borough as a NAGPRA “museum” and ordered disinterment and repatriation.

## Issues

1. Whether a municipality that maintains a memorial grave site qualifies as a “museum” under NAGPRA.
2. Whether a conventional burial at a memorial site constitutes a NAGPRA-covered “holding” or “collection” of Native American human remains.
3. Whether NAGPRA authorizes or requires a court to order disinterment and repatriation in this setting.

## Decision

- The Third Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
- The court held NAGPRA did not require the Borough of Jim Thorpe to disinter and repatriate Jim Thorpe’s remains.
- The court rejected the district court’s view that maintaining a grave and memorial converted the borough into a NAGPRA “museum” with a covered “collection.”
- The repatriation/disinterment order was vacated, and the case was remanded for proceedings consistent with the appellate interpretation of NAGPRA.

## Legal Principles

- NAGPRA’s repatriation regime applies to “museums” and federal agencies with “possession of, or control over, holdings or collections” of Native American remains and related cultural items.
- A conventional interment, even when publicly commemorated and maintained by a local government, is not necessarily a NAGPRA “collection” as contemplated by the statute’s text and purpose.
- Courts should avoid construing NAGPRA to federalize routine disputes governed by state burial law and local cemetery regulation absent clear statutory direction.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit limited NAGPRA’s reach to institutional custody of Native American remains and cultural items, holding that a municipally maintained memorial grave did not constitute a museum collection subject to mandatory disinterment and repatriation.


Thorpe v. Borough of Jim Thorpe, 770 F.3d 255 (3d Cir. 2014)