United States v. Wilgus
638 F.3d 1274 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act's permit system, which limits the possession of eagle feathers for religious purposes to members of federally-recognized tribes, does not violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act because it is the least restrictive means of furthering the government's dual compelling interests in protecting eagles and preserving the culture of federally-recognized tribes.
Facts:
- Samuel Ray Wilgus, who is not Native American by birth, is a sincere follower of a Native American religion.
- Wilgus moved to Utah and lived with members of the Southern Paiute Nation, eventually becoming a 'blood brother' to a Paiute man.
- Over the course of his religious training and service, Wilgus was given a number of eagle feathers as gifts from Native American individuals for religious purposes.
- On June 5, 1998, Wilgus was a passenger in a truck that was stopped by the Utah Highway Patrol.
- A search of the truck uncovered 137 eagle feathers belonging to Wilgus, and a subsequent search of his home produced four more.
- Wilgus could not produce a government permit for the feathers, which are legally restricted to members of federally-recognized tribes.
- The Chairperson of the Paiute Tribe informed authorities that their tribal law does not permit the adoption of non-Native American persons into the tribe.
Procedural Posture:
- The United States prosecuted Samuel Ray Wilgus in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah for illegal possession of eagle feathers.
- Wilgus entered a conditional guilty plea, preserving his right to appeal his conviction on religious freedom grounds.
- Wilgus appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, which consolidated his case with two others and granted a rehearing en banc in a case captioned United States v. Hardman.
- The en banc court held that the law substantially burdened Wilgus's religion and remanded the case to the district court to determine if the law was the least restrictive means of achieving the government's compelling interests.
- On remand, the district court held an evidentiary hearing and concluded that the Eagle Act's application to Wilgus violated RFRA.
- The United States, as appellant, appealed the district court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, with Wilgus as the appellee.
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 possession of eagle feathers for religious purposes to members of federally-recognized tribes, violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act by not being the least restrictive means of furthering the government's compelling interests?
Opinions:
Majority - Ebel, Circuit Judge.
No. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act's permit system does not violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) because it is the least restrictive means to achieve the government's compelling interests. The court identified two compelling governmental interests: 1) protecting bald and golden eagles, and 2) fulfilling the government's unique trust obligation to preserve the culture and religion of federally-recognized Indian tribes. The court emphasized that this second interest is tied to the political status of tribes, as established in Morton v. Mancari, not a general interest in Native American religion, which would raise Establishment Clause concerns. The court then analyzed whether the permit scheme was the least restrictive means by considering and rejecting two alternatives. First, opening the permit process to all sincere religious adherents would harm the government's interest in preserving tribal culture by making an already scarce resource even scarcer for tribal members and creating immense enforcement difficulties. Second, allowing tribal members to gift feathers to non-members would also divert the scarce resource from the protected class and create an unenforceable loophole that could fuel the black market. Therefore, the current system, which restricts permits to members of federally-recognized tribes, properly balances the competing interests and is the least restrictive means of achieving them.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the unique political status of federally-recognized tribes and solidifies the government's power to legislate specifically for their benefit, even when such laws incidentally burden the religious practices of non-members. By narrowly defining the government's compelling interest as protecting the culture of federally-recognized tribes, the court successfully navigates the tension between the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the Establishment Clause, and federal Indian law. This ruling creates a significant barrier for non-tribal members seeking religious exemptions for practices that involve resources allocated under the government's trust responsibility to tribes, establishing a strong precedent for future cases at the intersection of religious freedom and Native American sovereignty.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Wilgus