U.S. Effort to Protect Bald Eagle Suffers Legal Setback

A federal appeals court revived a religion-based challenge to a U.S. regulation that allows only members of Indian tribes recognized by the government to possess the birds' feathers

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

By Jonathan Stempel

(Reuters) - The bald eagle may no longer be extinct, but the U.S. effort to protect the national bird became harder on Wednesday.

A federal appeals court revived a religion-based challenge to a U.S. regulation that allows only members of Indian tribes recognized by the government to possess the birds' feathers, so long as they first obtain permits.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the Department of the Interior did not show the regulation was the "least restrictive means" to advance the compelling government interest in protecting the bald eagle because of its status as a national symbol.

Wednesday's decision reversed a lower court ruling, and revived claims by Texas-based groups and individuals, including the McAllen Grace Brethren Church, that the regulation violated their rights under the First Amendment's free exercise clause and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

The U.S. Department of Justice, which handled the case for the Interior Department, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Milo Colton, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, did not immediately respond to a similar request.

The case concerned the Eagle Protection Act, a 1940 law designed to protect the bald eagle from extinction because the bird symbolized "American ideals of freedom."

That law, which now also covers the golden eagle, set limits on transactions involving the birds, but contains an exception for "religious purposes of Indian tribes."

The government called the permit regulation an appropriate means to combat illegal trading in eagle feathers, without turning federal agents into "religious police" forced to verify the indigenous genealogy of people who possess the feathers.

Writing for the appeals court, however, Circuit Judge Catharina Haynes found no showing that a permit ban for "all but a select few" American Indians was necessary.

The case began after plaintiffs Michael Russell, who is not an American Indian, and Robert Soto, a pastor at the McAllen church who said he was part of an unrecognized tribe, had their eagle feathers confiscated at a 2006 ceremony known as a powwow.

In June 2007, the United States removed the bald eagle from its endangered species list, saying the number of nesting pairs in the lower 48 states had risen to 10,000 from 400 in 1963.

 

(Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York, editing by G Crosse)

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe