Dispute between two Native American tribes sent back to lower court

Complaint concerns historic site, Hickory Ground, where a casino and hotel have been built
The Wind Creek Casino and Hotel is seen on Feb. 25, 2024, in Wetumpka, Ala., where the Oklahoma-based Muscogee (Creek) Nation contends Alabama's Poarch Band of Creek Indians broke their legal promise to preserve a historic Muscogee site after they acquired it in 1980. (AP Photo/Kim Chandler)

Credit: AP

Credit: AP

The Wind Creek Casino and Hotel is seen on Feb. 25, 2024, in Wetumpka, Ala., where the Oklahoma-based Muscogee (Creek) Nation contends Alabama's Poarch Band of Creek Indians broke their legal promise to preserve a historic Muscogee site after they acquired it in 1980. (AP Photo/Kim Chandler)

A federal appeals court in Atlanta is returning to a lower court a legal dispute between a pair of Native American tribes concerning an historic site in Alabama called Hickory Ground.

The case stems from a lawsuit the Muscogee (Creek) Nation filed in 2012 against the Poarch Band of Creek Indians and others. The complaint alleges the Poarch removed more than 57 bodies and thousands of sacred artifacts from a 34-acre site near Wetumpka to make way for a casino and hotel. Doing so violated federal law and desecrated the land, the suit says.

The Poarch have accused the Muscogee of rebuffing efforts for cooperation between the tribes. The Poarch also have emphasized their sovereignty and said the excavation at Hickory Ground complied with federal law.

A federal district court judge in Alabama dismissed the case in 2021, ruling the Poarch have sovereign immunity, the legal doctrine that bars lawsuits against tribes.

The Muscogee appealed to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta. That appeals court issued its decision Friday, citing technical reasons for returning the case to the district court in Alabama.

“The district court erred when it failed to review the Poarch officials’ sovereign immunity, claim by claim,” the appeals court says in its ruling. “It instead concluded that the Poarch officials enjoy immunity against several claims and remedies together. That indiscriminate analysis was erroneous.”