Eagle Protection

Summary:

This case was vacated by the Tenth Circuit in the Hardman order.  Defendant in this case sold golden eagle skins to undercover agents in New Mexico.  On appeal, defendant contended that the district court failed to consider the facts under a RFRA analysis.  The Tenth Circuit disagreed, finding that defendant never claimed that his sale of eagle parts was for religious purposes and that the sale of eagle parts negates a claim of religious infringement on appeal.  For further discussion on religious challenges to the BGEPA, see Detailed Discussion.

Summary:

Laws governing intrastate activities will be upheld if they substantially affect interstate commerce.  Under the Eagle Act, the power to regulate eagles has been summarily upheld as a valid exercise of commerce power, as it protects the eagle as a species by preventing the creation of a legal commercial market for the animal.  For further discussion of the Eagle Act, see Detailed Discussion.

Summary:

Defendants shot and sold bald eagles to undercover officers posing as big game hunters in Montana.  On appeal, the court denied their claims against the permit system, finding that they lacked standing to challenge the permit system where they failed to apply for permits.  With regard to a facial challenge to the statute, the court held that the BGEPA passed the RFRA test, where the government asserted a compelling interest that was effectuated in the least restrictive means.  For further discussion on commerce in eagle parts, see Detailed Discussion of Eagle Act .

Summary:

During a search related to a controlled substances violation, undercover agents seized eagle feathers from defendant.  The court held that Congress exercised valid Commerce Clause power in enacting the BGEPA, as the incentive of interstate commerce in eagle parts would threaten eagles to extinction, thus depleting the future commercial potential of activities such as eagle-based tourism and educational research.  For discussion on the Eagle Act and the Commerce Clause, see Detailed Discussion .

Summary:

This quick summary examines the historical reasons behind the passage of the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. It also lists the relevant provisions of the Act, including what actions violate the Act and the potential penalties violators face, as well as what controversies the Act has created. At the bottom of the document are links to more detailed analyses of the Act.

Summary:

The Federal Regulations (50 C.F.R. 22 et seq) govern the issuance of permits to take bald or golden eagles.  Only under these proscribed circumstances will permits be issued to take any eagles.  Included among these categories are Indian religious permits, scientific permits, falconry permit, and permits to take inactive golden eagle nests by mining operators (links pdf. versions of these applications are provided in this document). 

Summary:

This overview of the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act provides annotations that link into a more detailed legal discussion of the Act. The summary reviews the historical underpinnings behind the passage of the Act and an examination of the major amendments to the original Act. Finally, the legal issues and controversies spawned by challenges to the Act are briefly summarized.

Summary:

This article provides a short summary of the bald eagle's (Haliaeetus leucocephals) pertinent biological information. Included in this summary are the facts about the eagle's breeding behavior, habitat, diet, and geographic range in the United States.

Summary:

This Comment examines the Tenth Circuit's United States v. Friday opinion along with its underlying implications. Part I provides a brief historical analysis of the BGEPA and introduces relevant statutory provisions, including the exception that allows Native Americans to apply for eagle take permits. Part II analyzes the development of RFRA to provide a better understanding of how RFRA affects Native American religious challenges to the BGEPA. Part III surveys relevant precedent in hopes of better understanding the opinion in Friday, and the avenues left open for future litigation. Part IV reviews the Friday opinion and discusses its relevant procedural history. Part V analyzes the Friday opinion in context with relevant precedent, discusses the implications of the Friday decision, and discusses the avenues left open for Native American religious challenges to the BGEPA after Friday.

Summary:

This Comment explores the current conflict between federal wildlife protection and Indian religious use of animals which reflects this philosophical debate.