The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled on a case involving a Nebraska family's claims of racial discrimination against the Omaha Discovery Trust, which operates the Kiewit Luminarium. The court upheld the lower court's decision to dismiss the family's lawsuit, stating that the admission policy in question was based on political classifications rather than racial ones. This ruling has implications for how public accommodations can structure their admission policies.
The case, titled Manfred L.S. Nare et al. v. Omaha Discovery Trust, was filed under docket number 25-3175. The plaintiffs, Manfred and Gwladys Nare, along with their minor child M.N., alleged that the Luminarium's policy of granting free admission to members of federally recognized tribes constituted unlawful discrimination. The court's decision, filed on June 24, 2026, affirms the lower court's dismissal of the claims brought by the Nares.
The dispute began in October 2023 when the Omaha Discovery Trust announced a policy offering complimentary admission to members of federally recognized Native American tribes. The Nares, who are Black and reside in Sarpy County, Nebraska, visited the Luminarium in February 2024 and paid the full admission price for themselves and their child. Upon learning about the admission policy, they requested a refund, which the Luminarium denied. This led the Nares to file a lawsuit in February 2025, alleging that the policy discriminated against them based on race and violated their rights under various federal statutes and the Nebraska Consumer Protection Act.
The Nares' lawsuit included four claims: discrimination based on race in a public accommodation, interference with contractual rights, interference with property rights, and a violation of the Nebraska Consumer Protection Act. The Omaha Discovery Trust responded by filing a motion to dismiss the case, which the district court granted. The court ruled that the Nares failed to demonstrate racial discrimination because tribal membership is a political classification, not a racial one.
The Eighth Circuit Court reviewed the district court's decision and agreed with its findings. The opinion, written by Circuit Judge Shepherd, stated, "The district court concluded that the Nares’ federal claims failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because tribal membership is a political, not racial, classification." The court referenced previous Supreme Court rulings that support the notion that classifications based on tribal membership do not equate to racial discrimination.
In its ruling, the Eighth Circuit also noted that the Nares' claims under the Nebraska Consumer Protection Act were similarly flawed. The court stated, "As we determined above that tribal membership is a political classification, the district court did not err in dismissing the Nares’ Nebraska Consumer Protection Act claim." This means that the Nares could not prove that they were victims of unfair trade practices based on the admission policy.
The impact of this ruling is significant for public accommodations across the country. It clarifies that policies offering benefits to members of federally recognized tribes are legally permissible as they are based on political classifications, not racial ones. This could set a precedent for other institutions that have similar admission policies or benefits for Indigenous peoples.
Moving forward, the ruling may influence how similar cases are approached in the future. The court's decision reinforces the idea that public accommodations can create policies that recognize the unique status of tribal members without violating federal anti-discrimination laws. This ruling could encourage other organizations to adopt similar policies without fear of legal repercussions.
As for the Nares, they may have limited options for further legal action. While they could potentially seek to appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court, such a move would depend on whether they can present new arguments or evidence that were not considered in the Eighth Circuit's decision. Details were not available in the court filing regarding any related cases or future actions by the Nares.