Editorial Standards

Latest News Today maintains rigorous editorial standards. Our team verifies information from trusted sources and provides context to help readers understand complex stories.

Last Updated: Thursday, October 1, 2026 at 07:44 PM
Category: Id

Editor's Note

Latest News Today provides comprehensive coverage and analysis of breaking news stories. This article is part of our ongoing coverage of wbna4787844, bringing you verified information from trusted sources with added context and expert perspective.

Why This Matters: Understanding the full context of this story helps readers make informed decisions and stay updated on developments that impact our community.

Court sticks to its ruling on ‘Kennewick Man’

A federal appeals court declined Monday to reconsider its February decision allowing scientists to resume testing on a 9,000-year-old skeleton.
KENNEWICK MAN
The Kennewick Man's skull provided the template for this plastic casting. Indians want the Kennewick Man skeleton handed over to them for burial, while scientists want to continue study of the remains.Elaine Thompson / AP file

A federal appeals court declined Monday to reconsider its February decision allowing scientists to resume testing on a 9,000-year-old skeleton — called “Kennewick Man” — despite protests from American Indian tribes.

The legal fight over the Kennewick Man skeleton started soon after two teenagers discovered it near the shore of the Columbia River near Kennewick, Wash., in 1996.

Scientists dated the remains as 8,340 to 9,200 years old, yet called the find puzzling because its features differed from those of American Indians. They hoped to continue testing to gain new insights into early North American people.

Indian tribes wanted the remains be buried, but in a ruling against the tribes and the federal government, which had sided with the Indians, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco rejected the request in February.

On Monday, the court declined to ask an 11-judge panel to reconsider the February ruling.