A Native American-backed advocacy group fighting for representation in schools, including Massapequa High School, announced last Wednesday that it is prepared to take its case to the Supreme Court following a lower court dismissal last November.
The Native American Guardian’s Association (NAGA) argued that the New York Board of Regents’ 2023 rule banning the use of Native names or imagery by public schools is discriminatory and violates the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equal treatment under the law.
“Today, we take the next step in our journey to the United States Supreme Court, which is the only logical finish line,” NAGA counsel Chap Petersen said in a statement. “The ‘Native Name Ban’ laws are both offensive and plainly unconstitutional. Their very existence is an embarrassment to all Americans, as well as the Native community.”
NAGA has stated that its broader goal is to eliminate such bans nationwide, including restoring names like the “Fighting Sioux” in North Dakota.
“Winning this case should lead to the wholesale voiding of ‘Name Ban’ laws, including the cancellation of the ‘Fighting Sioux’ name and symbol in North Dakota,” NAGA President Clayton Anderson, who is enrolled in the Hidatsa Tribe, said in a statement.
After the United States District Court dismissed its case on Nov. 14, the organization said it would appeal to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, viewing it as a step toward taking the case to the Supreme Court.
NATIVE AMERICAN GROUP LEADER CALLS OUT ‘FAR LEFT’ AMID NY SCHOOL MASCOT FIGHT
In the announcement, NAGA said the New York ban is “misleadingly titled” the “mascot ban,” arguing that it unfairly targets Native Americans while no similar prohibition exists for other ethnic names such as the “Vikings,” “Patriots” and “Yankees,” which are commonly used for team names and symbols.
“It had nothing to do with mascots, it was literally trying to eradicate any image of a Native American from a New York school and Massapequa,” NAGA attorney Chap Petersen said in a post.
The association described the ban as a race-based classification and argues that the ban should be subject to “strict scrutiny,” requiring the government to justify the law under strict legal standards.
“They’re only targeting one group, one ethnicity, to say you can’t be recognized, you can’t be celebrated by the teams,” Peterson added. “That’s a violation of the 14th amendment, which prohibits racial discrimination and gives all people equal protection under the law regardless of race or ethnicity.”
In November, a judge dismissed NAGA’s case, citing “lack of standing,” meaning the court determined that NAGA did not have the legal right to challenge the rule. NAGA, however, argues that the judge used this to sidestep the ruling on whether the law was fair.
