Snoqualmie Indian Tribe v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that FERC had evaluated the tribe’s RFRA claim before relicensing a hydroelectric project
• rejecting tribe’s argument that FERC’s decision to relicense hydroelectric dam at sacred site imposed substantial burden on religious exercise
• finding no substantial burden where plaintiffs failed to allege government action “coerce[d] them into a Catch-22 situation”
• rejecting 17 tribe’s RFRA claim because “[t]he Tribe’s arguments that the dam interferes with the 18 19 not a ceiling for the type of government coercion that could lead to a finding of substantial burden.” (Doc. 56 at 24
• “The issuance of a new license [to operate for another forty years the Snoqualmie Falls APACHE STRONGHOLD V. UNITED STATES 73 Nor does Bowen v. Roy, 476 U.S. 693 (1986), Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association, 485 U.S. 439 (1988

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).