Bald Eagle Protection Act and its regulations are least restrictive means of pursuing government's compelling interest in preserving bald eagle

STANDARD OF REVIEW United States v. Friday, No. 06-8093, ___ F.3d ___ (10th Cir. May 8, 2008)(Wyoming). Government appeal of dismissal of indictment for shooting bald eagle in violation of Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act at 16 U.S.C. § 668(a). HELD: (1) Whether a governmental interest is compelling within meaning of Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and whether means used by government to achieve that interest are least-intrusive means required by Act, are both questions of law that are reviewed de novo on appeal. (2) District court erroneously dismissed indictment by concluding that government permit process for taking bald eagle was so maladministered that any application for such permit by defendant would have been a futile act. Because defendant did not apply for permit to take bald eagle, he cannot complain of any delay he might have experienced. Any delay in the permitting process that might have burdened his exercise of tribal religion, even if he could prove, based on the experience of others, that it would likely have been excessive, did not affect him. Read the opinion here.