693 F. App'x 652
9th Cir.2017Background
- Defendant Shane Olney was convicted under 7 U.S.C. § 2156(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2 for sponsoring or exhibiting an animal in an unlawful animal fighting venture.
- The events occurred on Yakama land; Olney argued the federal court lacked jurisdiction over intra-Indian activity on tribal land.
- Olney also argued the statute, as applied, violated his Free Exercise rights by burdening a religiously motivated practice involving roosters.
- The district court found Olney did not personally exhibit or sponsor particular roosters but instead hosted and controlled an animal-fighting venture in which others participated.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed jurisdiction and First Amendment issues de novo and affirmed the conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Federal jurisdiction over crime on tribal land | Olney: federal court lacks jurisdiction for intra-Indian conduct on Yakama land | Government: federal laws of general applicability reach intra-Indian conduct | Court: jurisdiction exists; general federal criminal statutes apply to Indians and tribal lands |
| Free Exercise challenge to § 2156 | Olney: statute burdens religious exercise involving roosters | Government: statute is neutral and generally applicable, targeting animal fighting, not religion | Court: statute survives rational-basis review; conviction upheld (incidental burden permissible) |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Begay, 42 F.3d 486 (9th Cir. 1994) (standard of de novo review cited for related issues)
- United States v. Ward, 989 F.2d 1015 (9th Cir. 1992) (de novo review authority)
- United States v. Mitchell, 502 F.3d 931 (9th Cir. 2007) (federal criminal laws of general applicability extend to intra-Indian conduct)
- Fed. Power Comm’n v. Tuscarora Indian Nation, 362 U.S. 99 (1960) (general statutes applying to all persons include Indians and their property interests)
- Stormans, Inc. v. Wiesman, 794 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 2015) (framework for neutral laws of general applicability and incidental burdens on religion)
- United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460 (2010) (historical context for prohibitions on animal cruelty and public morality)
- Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U.S. 49 (1973) (speech/immorality context noting public moral concerns underlying some prohibitions)
- Ortega-Lopez v. Lynch, 834 F.3d 1015 (9th Cir. 2016) (upholding congressional judgment that cockfighting warrants prosecution)