Discussions of delayed repatriation primarily focus on uncooperative behavior and loophole finding, but few have investigated why delays may occur when attitudinal barriers are not present. In this study, I examine why repatriation has taken so long through the case study of the 79-A collection. I documented the collection’s history through archived material and analyzed how relevant institutions were or were not in legal compliance to understand why the collection was still being repatriated decades after the passage of Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. For work conducted after 2022, I utilized participant observation to understand technical aspects and institutional challenges from an insider’s perspective. My analysis demonstrated that, for this collection, the responsible institutions were in legal compliance and seemingly “finished” with repatriation, to the letter of the law, in 2000 with the Notice of Inventory Completion and communications to return the collection’s cultural items. However, after 2020, the letter of the law changed drastically. The repatriation process was renewed and conducted in collaboration with the culturally affiliated tribe, and by 2025, the entirety of the collection was recognized as cultural items and returned to the culturally affiliated tribe under a revised Notice of Inventory Completion. This case study demonstrated a lesson beyond my initial inquiry to learn why repatriation took so long. I argue that in the wake of California’s Assembly Bills 275 & 389 and federal changes in NAGPRA, there has been a fundamental shift in repatriation practice. Whereas repatriation in California was once led by archaeologists with occasional input from tribes, it is now led by collaboration between tribes and archaeologists which has brought the process closer to the spirit of the original law—respecting and protecting Native American cultural beliefs through the return of their ancestors and material culture.