In United States v. Friday, (10th Cir., May 8, 2008), the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a challenge under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to the government's enforcement of the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act ("Eagle Act"). The case involved the prosecution of Winslow Friday, a member of the Northern Arapaho Tribe, for killing a bald eagle so he could use it in his tribe's Sun Dance. Friday had never applied for a permit under the Eagle Act. The district court had held that the government's permit process was so maladministered that it would have been futile for Friday to apply for a permit. The Court of Appeals disagreed with this finding. It went on to hold that "the Eagle Act and its regulations are the least restrictive means of pursuing the government’s compelling interest in preserving the bald eagle." The AP yesterday reported on the decision. (See prior related posting.)
UPDATE: The May 13 San Diego Union-Tribune follows up on the decision with a mixed reaction to it from Sarah Krakoff, an associate professor of law at the University of Colorado. It also reports that Winslow Friday's attorney is considering seeking en banc review of the 3-judge panel's decision.
