Overview
“NO GO!”: California Indian Activism & Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association 1988

Author: Stephanie Lumsden, PhD (Hupa)
Lesson partner: Rebecca Lowry, Humboldt County Office of Education
Grades: 9-12
Suggested Amount of Time: 60-75 minutes (1-2 class sessions)
Curriculum Themes
- History
- Cultural Strengths
- Law/Government
- Relationship to Place
Learning Goals
Students will:
Recognize the inconsistencies of the protections of the First Amendment by engaging with primary sources.
Write a short creative writing piece inspired by a photo of the High Country landscape.
Assess online sources and gain media literacy skills by evaluating a website.
Understand the cultural and ecological significance of different places to Indigenous peoples.
Lesson Overview
This lesson would take approximately two class sessions to complete. The lesson introduces students to the Lyng v. NICPA 1988 Supreme Court case and the California Indian peoples who sought to protect their homelands from extractive timber via the G-O road. This lesson supports students’ growing media literacy skills by coaching them through evaluating a website that features primary sources related to the GO Road while also showing them how to interrogate sources as researchers. This lesson also encourages students to think creatively by engaging them in a creative writing exercise intended to help them relate to the lesson by evoking the landscape of the High Country. And finally, this lesson develops students’ political interests and engagement by encouraging them to examine their own values and passions through protest art, a vital part of the Native resistance to the G-O Road.
The teacher must understand the inconsistencies in legal protections for Native peoples. The teacher must be prepared to actively guide students through creative practice and online research.
Essential questions include:
What does religious freedom mean for Indigenous peoples who live under settler state occupation?
What are the contradictions and limits of the first amendment?
What are extractive industries?
What are some examples of Native peoples defending their homelands in the 21st century?
Teacher Background
For the Karuk, Yurok, and Tolowa peoples of northwestern California, the High Country, an area currently enveloped by the Siskiyou Wilderness Area, is a landscape of spiritual, ecological, and cultural importance. In the late 1970s through the early 1980s, the U.S. Forest Service began construction on an access road for the timber industry in the Six Rivers National Forest. The last 6.2 miles of the proposed road were to cut through an area of the High Country near Chimney Rock that is of particular importance to the Native peoples of the region. This section of the proposed road would connect the towns of Gasquet and Orleans, hence the name “G-O road.” When the G-O road was proposed Native peoples were immediately opposed to it because of the irreparable damage it would cause to their sacred homelands. Native people were active in their resistance to the G-O road and held vigils, made art, and engaged in legal battles to defend the High Country. In 1982, the U.S. Forest Service conducted an environmental impact statement (EIS) which concluded that the G-O road and any subsequent logging would damage the High Country and impede Native peoples’ religious practices and therefore recommended against the construction of the G-O road. However, the U.S. Forest Service ignored the EIS and continued with the plan to build the road. The Tribes decided to pursue a legal defense of their homelands and the Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association filed a legal injunction against the U.S. Forest Service on their behalf. The lower courts ruled in favor of NICPA but the U.S. Forest Service appealed until the case reached the Supreme Court. Richard E. Lyng, the Secretary of Agriculture, was named in the Supreme Court case, Lyng v. NICPA 1988. In a 5-3 ruling the Supreme Court ruled against NICPA and held that the development of the High Country was not in violation of the freedom of religion guaranteed by the first amendment because it did not compel Native peoples to act against their beliefs. The Supreme Court ruling in the Lyng v. NICPA case was a devastating blow to Native peoples’ religious freedoms and abilities to defend their homelands from extractive industries. While the Yurok, Karuk, and Tolowa peoples had suffered a defeat in the Supreme Court, the G-O Road was still never completed. The area of Chimney Rock was included in the Siskiyou Wilderness Area which provides the region with some protections. It is a temporary victory of sorts for the Tribes, but declaring sacred homelands a “wilderness” region still falls short of the larger goal of decolonization and land back.