About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

36 Ohio N.U. L. Rev. 115 (2010)
A Permit to Practice Religion for Some but Not for Others: How the Federal Government Violates Religious Freedom When It Grants Eagle Feathers Only to Indian Tribe Members

handle is hein.journals/onulr36 and id is 117 raw text is: A Permit to Practice Religion for Some But Not for Others: How the Federal Government Violates Religious Freedom When it Grants Eagle Feathers Only to Indian Tribe Members KYLE PERSAUD* INTRODUCTION On June 27, 2008, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling on a controversy that has divided federal appellate courts for the past seven years: whether individuals, who are not members of Indian tribes, may possess eagle feathers for use in religious observances.' Mario Vasquez-Ramos and Luis Rodriguez-Martinez were leaders in their Native American churches2 Although they say they are of tribal heritage, they are not members of any federally recognized Indian tribe. Like many practitioners ofNative American religion, Vasquez-Ramos and Rodriguez-Martinez use eagle feathers as part of their worship services. At ceremonial church gatherings, Vasquez-Ramos and Rodriguez-Martinez each received eagle feathers as gifts.4 A federal statute makes possession of eagle feathers illeal, but allows Indian tribe members to possess eagle feathers for religious use. However, the statute has no provision allowing non-members to possess eagle feathers for religious purposes.6 So, Vasquez-Ramos and Rodriguez-Martinez were prosecuted. Vasquez-Ramos and Rodriguez-Martinez argued that the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) violated their freedom of religion.8 The trial court disagreed, and the defendants entered a conditional plea of guilty and appealed to the Ninth Circuit.9 The Ninth Circuit upheld their conviction, ruling that the government's interest in preserving the eagle population outweighed the defendants' religious freedom.'o Was the holding in United States v. Vasquez-Ramos wrong? This article argues that the federal government must allow people who are not members of Indian tribes, who wish to practice Native American religions, access to eagle * B.A., Oklahoma Wesleyan University, 2004; J.D., University of Tulsa, May 2008. 1. See generally United States v. Vasquez-Ramos, 531 F.3d 987 (9th Cir. 2008). 2. Matt Krasnowski, Eagle Theft Pits Religious Practice against the Law, SAN DIEGO UNION TRIBUNE, May 14, 2006, at A4. 3. Vasquez-Ramos, 531 F.3d at 990. 4. Krasnowski, supra note 2, at A4. 5. 16 U.S.C. § 668-668a (2009). 6. See id. 7. Vasquez-Ramos, 531 F.3d at 989. 8. Id. 9. Id. at 987. 10. Id. at 990-92. 115

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most