Utah American Indians decision

Restricting the use of eagle parts and feathers to members of federally recognized American Indian tribes for religious purposes does not violate the religious freedoms of non-Indians seeking the same right, an Associate Press/ MSNBC article relayed last week from Denver's 10th. U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. (U.S. v. Wilgus, 09-4046 on March 29th.)

Federal law prohibits possession of the feathers or parts of eagles, but contains an exception to when the feathers are possessed "for the religious purposes of Indian tribes." The regulations implementing the exception limit its scope only to members of federally-recognized tribes , of which there are 565, and they're required to apply permits. (See "Eagle Act")

The defendant, here, was arrested in possession of 141 bald & golden eagle feathers. He is "a follower of a Native American faith", though not a member of a federally-recognized tribe, nor an Indian by birth. He "interposed as a defense," the Court's decision said, "the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 ("RFRA"), which prohibits the federal government from substantially burdening the religious freedom of individuals, unless it does so to forward a compelling governmental interest via the least restrictive means. (He) argued that the government's choice to limit legal possession of eagle feathers to members of federally-recognized tribes substantially burdens his religious exercise which, he claims, requires him to possess eagle feathers.

The District Court of Utah hadn't accepted this argument, but the Appeals Court, here, sitting en banc, reversed and ordered a hearing on whether the "Eagle Act" was the least restrictive means of serving the government's interests. [United States v. Hardman, 297 F.3d 1116, 1135-36 (10th Cir. 2002) (en banc)]. The district court on remand conducted a number of hearings, considering both live testimony and documentary evidence, and held that application of the "Eagle Act" in this instance did violate "RFRA". [ United States v. Wilgus, 606 F. Supp. 2d 1308, 1334-35 (D. Utah 2009) ]

The Court here again reverses.