This note discusses the United States v. Corrow decision. It focuses on the interpretation of cultural patrimony as defined by NAGPRA and emphasizes the dangers presented by this vague definition. The court in United States v. Corrow was the first to address whether the statute is unconstitutional because it is vague. This case is the first and only authority on NAGPRA's definition of cultural patrimony; therefore, the case and this note present significant avenues to understanding and thinking about cultural patrimony.