The protection of sacred sites—defined here as areas of religious significance to a group of people—remains a contentious issue in many world regions and a significant dynamic in the uneasy relationship between the US government and many American Indian tribes. Even the definition of sacred site and the establishment of defensible policy principles to be followed when sacred sites are affected or threatened by changing land uses have defied conscientious attempts to clarify terms; provide equal treatments of diverse ethnic, religious, and place-based communities; and apply lessons learned in one setting to other cases. Why do such problems persist? Sacred-site disputes, including the Arizona case discussed here, are embedded in continental-scale colonialist encounters, legal frameworks, and nationalist hesitancies to recognize and respect minority nations’ interests in carrying forward important and distinctive aspects of their heritage. The United Nations and governments at other levels have occasionally responded to pleas for the protection of both constructed and unmodified sacred sites.