436 F.Supp.3d 1272
D. Ariz.2020Background
- Four volunteers with No More Deaths (a Unitarian Universalist–affiliated humanitarian ministry) entered the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge (CPNWR) in August 2017, used a restricted administrative road, and left food and water at trail locations without permits. They admitted the conduct.
- The Refuge is a hazardous desert corridor where many migrants die; permit terms (amended a month earlier) specifically prohibited leaving water, food, and similar items.
- Defendants were criminally charged (entering without a permit, abandoning property, and driving in a wilderness area), tried before a magistrate judge, and convicted after a three-day bench trial.
- Defendants asserted a Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) defense, claiming the humanitarian acts were a sincere exercise of religion. Trial evidence showed religious motivation, church affiliation, ritual practices, and willingness to endure extreme heat.
- The district court on appeal reversed the convictions, holding that prosecution substantially burdened Defendants’ sincere religious exercise and the Government failed to prove the application of the regulations to these defendants was the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling interest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Defendants’ conduct is an "exercise of religion" and sincerely held | Government: conduct was secular/political humanitarianism, not religious practice | Defendants: volunteer aid is motivated by sincere, church‑tied religious beliefs and practices | Court: beliefs were religious and sincerely held; RFRA protects them |
| Whether enforcement of CPNWR regulations substantially burdens religious exercise | Government: rules apply to all; burden is general and not substantial | Defendants: prosecution and criminal sanctions coerce abandonment of faith‑motivated aid | Court: prosecution imposes a substantial burden (threat of criminal sanction and pressure to abandon conduct) |
| Whether Government has a compelling interest in applying the regulations to these defendants | Government: preserve the Refuge/environment and aid border‑enforcement deterrence | Defendants: Refuge is already degraded; evidence fails to show claimed deterrent effect or unique environmental harm from defendants’ actions | Court: Government failed to show a compelling interest in applying regulations to these particular defendants |
| Whether prosecution is the least restrictive means to further any compelling interest | Government: uniform enforcement required; exemptions would cause a flood of claims | Defendants: alternatives exist (designated points, supervise trash removal, limited exemptions) | Court: Government did not show no workable alternatives; prosecution is not least restrictive |
Key Cases Cited
- Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682 (2014) (RFRA requires least restrictive means scrutiny)
- Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) (free exercise clause and limits prompting RFRA)
- Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (2006) (RFRA: compelled scrutiny of exemptions; reject slippery‑slope argument)
- City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997) (standard for compelling interest/strict scrutiny context)
- Navajo Nation v. U.S. Forest Serv., 535 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2008) (RFRA substantial‑burden framework and limits)
- United States v. Christie, 825 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir. 2016) (RFRA may be raised as an affirmative defense in criminal cases)
- United States v. Ward, 989 F.2d 1015 (9th Cir. 1992) (test for whether beliefs are religious and sincerely held)
- United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163 (1965) (functional test: beliefs occupying place of traditional religious conviction)
- Thomas v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Sec. Div., 450 U.S. 707 (1981) (courts must not dissect religious beliefs' plausibility)
- Yellowbear v. Lampert, 741 F.3d 48 (10th Cir. 2014) (substantial‑burden standard: coercion by threat of sanction)
- Frazee v. Illinois Dept. of Employment Security, 489 U.S. 829 (1989) (religious protection not limited to organized religion)
- Callahan v. Woods, 658 F.2d 679 (9th Cir. 1981) (nontraditional beliefs closely tied to theistic tradition are religious)