Northern Arapaho Tribe v. Ashe, 925 F. Supp. 2d 1206

Plaintiffs Northern Arapaho Tribe and Jim Shakespeare applied in Oct 2009 to the FWS for an eagle take permit for use in religious ceremonies on the Wind River Reservation.
The FWS granted a renewable permit in March 2012 to take up to two adult bald eagles per year but prohibited taking on the Reservation itself.
Eastern Shoshone opposed eagle take on the Reservation; consultative process with both tribes followed.
Plaintiffs allege RFRA and related claims, asserting a 2.5-year delay in issuing the permit and the Reservation ban burden their religious exercise.
Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief, including faster permit processing and allowing Reservation taking, while Defendants moved for summary judgment.
The court denied the RFRA-related partial summary judgment for Plaintiffs and granted summary judgment for Defendants on those RFRA claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
RFRA claim alleging government burden on religious exercise due to delay	Delay violated RFRA by burdening practice	Delay was justified by compelling interests and least restrictive means	RFRA claim fails; no substantial burden shown given context and balancing interests
RFRA claim regarding prohibition of eagle taking within the Reservation	Refusal to allow Reservation take burdens tribe’s religious exercise	FWS balanced competing interests of both tribes; prevention within Reservation necessary	RFRA claim survives standing but upheld because FWS used least restrictive means balancing interests
Standing to seek declaratory/injunctive relief for delay	Delay ongoing and likely repeatable causes standing	Delay ceased when permit issued; Lyons rule defeats forward-looking standing	Plaintiffs lack standing for relief seeking future delay
Standing to seek relief regarding Reservation take	Ongoing injury from Reservation ban supports standing	Injury traceable and redressable; standing established	Plaintiffs have standing to seek declaratory/injunctive relief for Reservation take

United States v. Wilgus, 638 F.3d 1274 (10th Cir.2011) (RFRA framework and balancing interests; least restrictive means)
Lyons v. City of Los Angeles, 461 U.S. 95 (U.S. 1983) (standing for declaratory/injunctive relief; likelihood of future harm)
County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44 (U.S. 1991) (distinction between ongoing vs. past injury for standing)
Abdulhaseeb v. Calbone, 600 F.3d 1301 (10th Cir.2010) (RFRA/RLUPA-like burden analysis context; burden-shifting framework )
Grace United Methodist Church v. City of Cheyenne, 451 F.3d 643 (10th Cir.2006) (RFRA substantial burden framework evolution)
Wilgus v. U.S., 638 F.3d 1274 (10th Cir.2011) (compelling interests balancing framework in RFRA context)
Werner v. McCotter, 49 F.3d 1476 (10th Cir.1995) (early RFRA substantial burden standard (central tenet focus))