Ninth Circuit Affirms Constitutionality of Bald Eagle Protection Act

In consolidated cases, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the constitutionality of prosecuting American Indians under the Bald and Golden Eagles Protection Act, rejecting a challenge under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. A similar case is under review by the Tenth Circuit (United States v. Friday).

The Ninth Circuit applied a 2003 precedent, United States v. Antoine, upholding the law under similar facts. Here are the materials.

us-v-antoine-ca9-2003

vasquez-ramos-opening-brief

Continue reading

Possible Future Circuit Split re: Bald & Golden Eagles Protection Act

An interesting question is brewing in the Ninth and Tenth Circuits — whether the administration of the National Eagle Repository (created by the USFWS as a means to create an exception to the Bald and Golden Eagles Protection Act for American Indians) is unconstitutional as applied to American Indians.

Continue reading

Stanley Fish on Religious Freedom

Stanley Fish, as always, has something interesting to say about the law. In this post (“Monkey Business“) on his NYT’s blog, “Think Again,” Fish describes a case in federal court (S.D. N.Y.) about a claim that the importation of “bushmeat” for religious purposes that otherwise would violate the Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species.

Continue reading

CRS Reports — Additional Available Reports

We previously offered links to Congressional Research Service reports related to Indian law here.

Since then, we’ve located a few more:

Federal Taxation of Tribes and Indians (2007)

American Indian Education Programs (2007)

Religious Freedom Restoration Act (2006)

Small Business Administration Programs (2007)

Eagle Repository Case: United States v. Friday (CA10)

In December, the Tenth Circuit will hear oral argument in the United States’ appeal of the dismissal of the prosecution of Winslow Friday for the taking of eagle parts. The district court found that the difficulty for American Indians in obtaining eagle parts using the national eagle repository permit system violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Specifically, the court held that the eagle repository permit system was not the least restrictive means to protect eagles and therefore infringed on the religious freedom of Winslow Friday.

One element of the case that might make it difficult for Winslow Friday is the apparent fact that he never applied for a permit. The lower court found that the application of a permit was futile. However, some American Indians did seek and receive permits to fatally take eagles, perhaps only 1 but perhaps as many as 5.

The lower court order is here: District Court’s Order of Dismissal

The Government’s opening brief is here: US Opening Brief

Friday’s response brief is here: Friday’s Response Brief

The Government’s reply brief is here: US Reply Brief