United States v. Leonard Fridall Terry Antoine
318 F.3d 919 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), a government policy that allocates a scarce resource among competing religious adherents is not considered to have failed the "least restrictive means" test if any alternative allocation would simply shift the religious burden from one group of believers to another.
Facts:
- Leonard Fridall Terry Antoine is a member of the Cowichan Band of the Salish Indian Tribe in British Columbia, Canada, a tribe not federally recognized by the United States.
- Antoine sincerely believes the exchange of eagle parts, a native custom known as "potlatch," has religious significance.
- Antoine obtained dead eagles in Canada and brought their feathers and parts into the United States.
- In the U.S., Antoine exchanged these eagle parts for money and goods as part of his religious practice.
- The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) includes a permit program allowing members of federally recognized tribes to receive eagle parts from a national repository for religious purposes.
- Demand for eagle parts from the repository significantly exceeds the available supply, resulting in a waiting list of several years for eligible applicants.
- Because his tribe is not federally recognized by the U.S., Antoine is ineligible to apply for or receive eagle parts through this permit program.
Procedural Posture:
- The United States charged Leonard Fridall Terry Antoine in federal district court with violating the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA).
- Antoine filed a motion to dismiss the prosecution, claiming BGEPA, as applied to him, violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).
- The district court, serving as the trial court, denied Antoine's motion to dismiss.
- Following the denial of his motion, Antoine was convicted of the BGEPA violations.
- Antoine, as the appellant, appealed his conviction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
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 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act's permit system, which restricts the distribution of eagle parts for religious use to members of federally recognized tribes, violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act as applied to a member of a non-recognized tribe?
Opinions:
Majority - Kozinski, Circuit Judge.
No. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act's permit system does not violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act because, in a situation of scarce resources, an alternative that simply shifts a religious burden to other believers cannot be considered 'less restrictive.' The government has a compelling interest in protecting the eagle population, which justifies limiting the supply of eagle parts to those available through the federal repository. Because demand exceeds this fixed supply, any eagle parts given to non-members like Antoine would be parts not given to members of recognized tribes, thus exacerbating the burden on their religious exercise. RFRA does not require the government to burden one group's religion more to lessen the burden on another's. The allocation is based on the government's unique political relationship with federally recognized tribes, a secular classification, not on religious favoritism. Therefore, any allocation of the inescapable religious burden is considered the least restrictive means.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the application of RFRA's 'least restrictive means' test in the context of scarce resource allocation among competing religious interests. The court establishes that when a government policy must distribute a limited good essential for religious practice, it is not required to re-allocate the resource if doing so would merely transfer the substantial burden from one religious group to another. This creates a carve-out from typical RFRA analysis, shielding allocation schemes from challenges that seek to reapportion a burden rather than eliminate it. The ruling reinforces the federal government's broad discretion in managing its trust responsibilities with federally recognized tribes, even when those policies incidentally affect the religious practices of others.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Leonard Fridall Terry Antoine