U.S. v. Hardman
297 F.3d 1116 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), when a federal law substantially burdens a person's sincere exercise of religion, the government bears the burden of proving with specific evidence, not mere speculation, that the law is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest.
Facts:
- Raymond S. Hardman, who is not of Native American descent but practices a Native American religion, received a bundle of golden eagle feathers from a Hopi tribal religious leader as part of a cleansing ritual.
- Hardman contacted the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources to obtain a permit for the feathers but was told he could not apply because he was not a member of a federally recognized tribe.
- A Ute tribal officer, acting under federal authority, later went to Hardman's home and seized the eagle feathers from his truck.
- Samuel Ray Wilgus, Jr., who is not of Native American descent but practices a Native American religion, was a passenger in a truck that was stopped by a Utah Highway Patrol Officer.
- During a search of the truck, the officer discovered 141 bald and golden eagle feathers belonging to Wilgus, for which he did not have a permit.
- Joseluis Saenz, a lineal descendant of the Chiricahua Apache (a non-federally recognized tribe), practices the Chiricahua Apache religion, for which eagle feathers are integral.
- While executing an unrelated search warrant at Saenz's home, state officials observed religious items containing eagle feathers, which he had received as gifts, and seized them because he lacked a permit.
Procedural Posture:
- In separate cases, Raymond S. Hardman was convicted of violating the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Samuel Ray Wilgus, Jr. entered a conditional guilty plea for violating the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA). Both convictions were in federal district court.
- Hardman appealed his conviction to the district court, which affirmed, and then appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
- Wilgus appealed his conviction directly to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
- Joseluis Saenz had his eagle feathers seized, and criminal charges against him were dismissed. He then filed a motion in federal district court for the return of his property.
- The district court granted Saenz's motion, ordering the feathers returned on RFRA grounds. The United States, as the appellant, appealed this order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, with Saenz as the appellee.
- The three separate appeals were initially heard by different three-judge panels of the Tenth Circuit, which reached conflicting outcomes. The court then vacated the panel opinions and ordered the cases to be consolidated and reheard en banc.
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 federal regulatory scheme prohibiting the possession of eagle feathers without a permit, which is only available to members of federally recognized tribes, violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) when applied to sincere practitioners of Native American religions who are not members of a federally recognized tribe?
Opinions:
Majority - Tacha, C.J.
Yes, as applied to Saenz, the regulatory scheme violates RFRA because the government failed to meet its burden of proving that restricting permits to members of federally recognized tribes is the least restrictive means of furthering its compelling interests. A federal law that substantially burdens a person's religious exercise is permissible under RFRA only if the government demonstrates that it is the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest. While the government has compelling interests in protecting eagle populations and preserving Native American culture, it failed to produce a factual record to support its claim that the current permit scheme is the least restrictive means to achieve those ends. The government's arguments—that expanding permit eligibility would increase poaching and harm Native American culture—were based on mere speculation and lacked evidentiary support. Because the government failed to carry its burden in Saenz's case, the district court's order to return his feathers is affirmed. In the cases of Hardman and Wilgus, the RFRA claims were dismissed before trial, so the government had no opportunity to build a factual record; therefore, those cases are remanded to allow the parties to develop the record.
Concurring - Murphy, J.
Yes. While I agree with the judgment to affirm in Saenz and remand in Hardman and Wilgus, the majority's reasoning is flawed. The majority incorrectly concluded that the government failed to show how the regulatory scheme advances its compelling interests; the scheme as a whole clearly does advance eagle protection (by generally banning possession) and Native American culture (by creating a religious exception). The proper reason for the outcome is that the government failed to meet the second part of the RFRA test: it did not demonstrate that the current scheme is the least restrictive means of balancing its two competing, compelling interests. The government failed to produce evidence showing that expanding permit eligibility to sincere practitioners who are not members of recognized tribes would compromise its interests, particularly its interest in preserving Native American culture.
Concurring - Hartz, J.
Yes. I join the majority opinion but write to clarify that the court is not deciding whether the procedures for distributing eagle parts from the National Eagle Repository violate RFRA. The issue here is narrower: whether the claimants are entitled under RFRA to permits to possess the eagle parts they already have. On remand, the government will have the burden to prove that its general ban on possession is necessary to protect eagles and that it is unworkable to create an exception for religious practitioners who can provide convincing proof that their eagle parts came from a legitimate source. The government might also prevail if it can prove that its trust obligations require seizing all privately held feathers for distribution to recognized tribes, but this would require a strong evidentiary showing.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the application of RFRA to federal actions and underscores the high evidentiary burden placed on the government when its laws substantially burden religious exercise. By rejecting the government's 'mere speculation,' the court requires a concrete, fact-based showing to satisfy the 'least restrictive means' test. This raises the bar for the government in future RFRA cases, preventing it from relying on generalized or unsupported assertions of harm to justify its actions. The ruling also creates a framework for challenging federal laws that draw distinctions based on tribal membership when religious freedom is at stake, pushing for a more inclusive approach unless the government can prove a narrow classification is absolutely necessary.
Unlock the full brief for U.S. v. Hardman