Government’s Opening Brief in Tenth Circuit Appeal of RFRA Eagle Case Involving Non-Indians

Here is the government’s opening brief in U.S. v. Wilgus (CA10) — US Opening Brief in Wilgus

Wilgus, you may recall, is a non-Indian who took eagle parts in violation of the Eagle Act, but avoided conviction by arguing under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act any application of the Eagle Act to him, as a non-Indian, would destroy his right to practice a “Native American” religion (lower court opinion is here). As we noted then, Indians like Winslow Friday get prosecuted because the Eagle Act theoretically allows them to use eagle parts, but non-Indians are immune because they can’t. Huh?

We’ll be watching to see how this plays out.

Arizona Snowbowl Case — Will US Recommend Cert Grant, Too?

As Indianz reports, the Navajo Nation v. United States Forest Service cert petition is brewing. A bunch of amici have filed supporting the cert petition, which definitely gets the attention of the Supreme Court (or at least the cert pool).

There are times when the respondent to a cert petition agrees with the petitioner that the Court should grant cert and hear the case. It happened in Negonsott v. Samuels (link to cert pool memo) and it could happen again … maybe.

There isn’t a classic or clear circuit split, but the CA9 in the Snowbowl case has come up with the most restrictive way to interpret RFRA’s “substantial burden test,” and I bet the United States would like to see the CA9’s rule expanded nationwide. And since American Indian religious freedom rights don’t do very well in the SCT, the United States might think this is the right vehicle and take a gamble. I’m being pretty cynical, and it is pretty unlikely, but you never know.

Friday v. U.S. Cert Petition — Not a “Petition to Watch” — Commentary

Tomorrow the Supreme Court likely will deny cert in the Friday v. United States petition. SCOTUSblog does not pick it as a “petition to watch”, which means something. There was a moment when the Supreme Court might have heard this case (and maybe not in a good way, since the United States would be the petitioner then), but the Tenth Circuit joined the Ninth Circuit in upholding the constitutionality of the Bald Eagle Protection Act.

The ironic, even ridiculous, result of these cases is that it is easier for non-Indians to take advantage of the American Indian religious exemptions than it is for Indians. Yesterday, Indianz reported on one such case favoring non-Indians. Here is the argument:

Samuel Wilgus Jr and Raymond Hardman were convicted of possessing feathers without a federal permit. But since they are not enrolled in a federally recognized tribe, they wouldn’t have been able to obtain one. The scheme violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Judge Dee Benson ruled. The men say they are practitioners of Native American religions.  (emphasis added) [Here is the opinion — Wilgus Order]

So, what this means is that the very existence of a regulatory/statutory mechanism for Indians to acquire eagle parts under the Protection Act through the National Eagle Repository — a mechanism that is incontrovertibly useless, a fact that Indian people could conceivably prove (but apparently not a “constitutional fact”) — means that the statute does not violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. But for non-Indians, who can never take advantage of the Repository (and, perhaps, Indian religions), it is a constitutional violation.

I’ve convinced myself. It is ridiculous.

Amar and Brownstein on the Navajo Nation v. USFS Case

Wow! This may be the first time anyone on Findlaw has written anything substantive on Indian law. This might actually contribute to raising the profile of the case a bit for the SCT.

From Findlaw (via How Appealing and Con Law Prof Blog):

By VIKRAM DAVID AMAR AND ALAN BROWNSTEIN

The U.S. Supreme Court will decide in the coming weeks whether to take up an important and interesting case from the U.S Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit involving religious liberties and the seminal federal statute – the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) – designed to safeguard them. In this column, we will discuss the issues the case raises; the reasons why the Ninth Circuit’s resolution of these issues, while understandable, might not do justice to the complex and competing interests involved; and the problems that both the Supreme Court and lower courts face when trying to implement this well-meaning but imperfectly-drafted Congressional statute.

Continue reading

Snoqualmie Tribe v. FERC Materials

As Indianz reported (here)….

Here are the briefs:

puget-sound-energy-opening-brief

state-of-washington-brief

snoqualmie-brief

puget-sound-energy-reply-brief

Comanche Nation v. US — Preliminary Injunction Granted in Fort Sill Case

Our earlier posting was here.

Now, the court has granted a preliminary injunction against further construction at Medicine Bluffs at Fort Sill.

medicine-bluffs-preliminary-injunction-order

Commentary on Snowbowl Case

From Truthout:

Ninth Circuit rules effluent does not defile sacred space. Forest Service argued skiing on treated sewage “a compelling government interest.”

The San Francisco Peaks of Northern Arizona “are sacred to at least 13 formally recognized Indian tribes … and this religious significance is of centuries duration.”(1) In February 2005, the US Forest Service issued a Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision approving a proposal to make artificial snow using treated sewage effluent at the Snowbowl Resort located on Humphrey’s Peak, the highest and – to the tribes – most holy of the San Francisco Peaks. That decision was appealed by the Navajo Nation, the Hopi Tribe, the Havasupai Tribe, the Hualapai Tribe, the Yavapai-Apache Nation and the White Mountain Apache Nation. The Circuit Court ruled for the Forest Service. In February 2007, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court unanimously overturned the lower court’s decision. On Friday, August 8, 2008, the en banc majority of the Ninth Circuit Court ruled that “using treated sewage effluent to make artificial snow on the most sacred mountain of southwestern Indian tribes does not violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (‘RFRA’). It also holds that a supposed pleading mistake prevents the tribes from arguing under the National Environmental Act (‘NEPA’) that the Forest Service failed to consider the likelihood that children and others would ingest snow made from the effluent.”(2)

On August 18, Leslie Thatcher, of Truthout, spoke with the Navajo Nation’s lead attorney in the case, Howard Shanker, who is also running in the Democratic primary for Arizona Congressional District One, the seat currently held by retiring Representative Rick Renzi (R-Arizona), presently under indictment for extortion, wire fraud, money laundering, and other charges related to an Arizona land deal.

Leslie Thatcher, for Truthout: Howard, what do you consider the most important issues in the Snowbowl case to be?

The San Francisco Peaks are federal land and the government has documented for years that the Peaks – especially Humphreys where Snowbowl is located – are sacred to local tribes. Nonetheless, the Feds issued a special use permit to operate a ski resort there that was unsuccessfully challenged in the 1970’s. Most recently, the Forest Service ruled that the resort could pipe up to 1.5 million gallons of treated sewage effluent to the resort for snowmaking in winters when natural snowfall is inadequate. The tribes have appealed that ruling.

The central issue that’s going on and that’s really important is that Native tribes have no First Amendment rights when it comes to government land-use decisions. And the federal government holds thousands of acres of land across the country that the tribes hold sacred. Up until we used the Religious Freedom Restoration Act [RFRA] successfully, there was no way for the tribes to challenge federal use of sacred lands. Now, they have to show there is a compelling government interest and that they are using the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling government interest when government action substantially burdens the exercise of religion.

The current ruling is that there is no substantial burden on the exercise of religion. The judges have said there is no objective evidence of impact on religious belief and practice.

Short of producing God in the courtroom, there’s no way to produce “objective” evidence. A Navajo elder testified that putting effluent on the mountain would be like raping his mother. Other testimonies – the sincerity of which were never challenged – described the disruptions to the spiritual world and contamination of the ritual purity of materials essential to Native ceremonies that spraying the effluent would result in.

The en banc court adopted a very restrictive reading of “Sherbet and Yoder” that does not seem to speak to the statute. In any event, spraying the Peaks can certainly be interpreted as a form of punishment or coercion.

The tribes appealed the Forest Service decision under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) rather than the First Amendment to the US Constitution. Can you explain how the RFRA differs from the First Amendment and why Congress passed the act?

In “Smith,” the Supreme Court said laws of general application can’t constitute a general burden under the Constitution. So then, Congress passed RFRA to say that even though a law may be of general applicability, if it results in a substantial burden to the exercise of religion, you have to do this balancing of interests. Then in 2003, Congress passed the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act [RLUIPA] amending and broadening RFRA’s definition of “exercise of religion.”

The Ninth Circuit Court dissent, written by Judge Fletcher, joined by Judges Pregerson and Fisher, notes that “Under our prior case law, a ‘substantial burden’ on the ‘exercise of religion’ exists where government action prevents an individual ‘from engaging in [religious] conduct or having a religious experience’ and the interference is ‘more than an inconvenience.'” Can you explain how spraying up to 1.5 million gallons of effluent a day on the sacred mountains burdens the various plaintiff tribes’ exercise of religion?

For the Hopi, the Mountain is where the Katsina live; that’s their only sacred mountain; the Katsina are responsible for making the moisture that is essential to Hopi life. It was on Mt. Humphreys that the Hopi had their revelation and they return there for pilgrimages.

For the Navajo, it’s one of four sacred mountains, but it is essential to all blessing way ceremonies which depend on ritually pure materials gathered from the mountain.

The tribes see the Peaks as a single living entity; this is a living being. You can’t poison just one part of it without poisoning the whole.

One man testified that current ski runs are like a scar on the body, something the body can live with, but that putting effluent on the Peaks is like a toxic injection.

For the Apache, the mountain is where souls go after death; the transfer station of souls to Heaven and the spraying will interfere with that operation.

For both the Hualapai and the Navajo, the mountain is their Garden of Eden, where life started.

The government has never questioned the specific special holiness of these mountains to the Native tribes. In fact, in the very beginning, the National Historic Preservation Act uses the Peaks as an example of a sacred space.

Commentary on Arizona Snowbowl Case

From NewsPirates:

Native Americans have traditionally come up short, getting the s**** end of the stick from the Federal government for several hundred years. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has given it to them again, this time literally.

The court ruled that using treated wastewater on the San Francisco Peaks in Arizona to make artificial snow does not violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and overturned a previous ruling that would have protected the mountain that is sacred to at least 13 Indian tribes.

These dunderheads wrote this in the majority: “The only effect of the proposed upgrades is on the Plaintiffs’ subjective, emotional religious experience.”

Okay so let’s start spraying treated wastewater on the National Cathedral to clean it! Maybe we should mandate that those upscale ski resorts in Aspen should use refined sewage to make their snow so that the rich can zip down the trails! Maybe the next time the Pope shows up he can get out a hose and use some treated effluent, blessed as it comes out of the nozzle, to wet down the adoring throng!

But the real issue is religious freedom. The site has been sacred to Native Americans not for just a few hundred years but for a few thousand. The judges ruling that the tribe “cannot dictate the decisions that government makes in managing ‘what is, after all, its land.’, is a bull. It was the Indians land long before the government ever showed up to commit our own little genocide.

The tribes will appeal, probably to the U.S. Supreme Court, but considering the make up of that what is now a less than august body, their chances are not very good and you know what will continue to be sprayed on the San Francisco Peaks.

Thunderhorse v. Pierce — Prisoner Religious Freedom Case

Hey, a successful challenge in a prisoner religious freedom case! That doesn’t happen very often.

thunderhorse-v-pierce-dct-opinion

Prisoner Religious Freedom Case in Eighth Circuit

In Fowler v. Crawford, the Eighth Circuit affirmed a district court dismissal of a claim that a prison’s denial of access to a sweat lodge to a Cherokee descendant violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Here are the materials:

fowler-opening-brief

crawford-brief

fowler-reply-brief

fowler-v-crawford-ca8-opinion