Lexplug logoLexplug

Harvey (Fire Bird) Gibson v. Bruce Babbitt

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
223 F.3d 1256 (2000)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The government's interest in fulfilling its treaty obligations and trust relationship with federally recognized Indian tribes is a compelling governmental interest under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Limiting a scarce government-provided religious resource to members of those tribes is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest.


Facts:

  • Harvey (Fire Bird) Gibson's religion uses bald or golden eagle feathers in its ceremonies.
  • The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) generally prohibits possessing eagles or their parts, but creates an exception for the religious purposes of Indian tribes.
  • A federal regulation limits this religious exception to individuals who are certified members of a federally recognized Indian tribe.
  • Gibson is not a member of a federally recognized Indian tribe.
  • Gibson applied to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for five eagle feathers to use in his religious ceremonies.
  • The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service denied Gibson's application because he was not a member of a federally recognized tribe.
  • The demand for eagle parts from the government's repository exceeds the available supply, causing long delays for applicants who are members of recognized tribes.

Procedural Posture:

  • Harvey Gibson sued the United States in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, a federal trial court.
  • Gibson alleged the denial of his application for eagle feathers violated his rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the First Amendment.
  • The district court entered a final judgment for the Government, finding that the tribal membership requirement was a permissible policy that did not violate RFRA.
  • Gibson, as the appellant, appealed the district court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the requirement under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA), as implemented by federal regulation, that an applicant for eagle feathers be a member of a federally recognized Indian tribe violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA)?


Opinions:

Majority - Per Curiam

No. The requirement that an applicant for eagle feathers be a member of a federally recognized tribe does not violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Under RFRA's compelling interest test, the government has a compelling interest in fulfilling its pre-existing treaty obligations to federally recognized Indian tribes. The court found that the government met its burden of showing this was a compelling interest, stemming from the unique trust relationship between the U.S. and these sovereign entities. Furthermore, the regulation is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest because the supply of eagle parts is scarce and demand is high. Opening the application process to individuals outside of federally recognized tribes would increase delays for tribal members and thus vitiate the government's efforts to fulfill its treaty and trust responsibilities. The court also held that, by the same reasoning, the requirement does not violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.



Analysis:

This decision reinforces the unique political status of federally recognized Indian tribes and solidifies the principle that the government's trust responsibility to these tribes can serve as a compelling interest to justify policies that would otherwise fail under strict scrutiny. The case establishes that this trust responsibility can outweigh an individual's religious freedom claim under RFRA when a resource is scarce. This precedent makes it significantly more difficult for individuals who are not members of federally recognized tribes to challenge federal laws and programs that provide specific benefits to tribal members, particularly in contexts involving religious or cultural practices tied to protected resources.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Harvey (Fire Bird) Gibson v. Bruce Babbitt (2000)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"