NMTA, NTA & FTA File Law Suite Against NM State 32
Tax deductible
SB 32 "Ban of Trapping On Public Lands", has been signed by the governor of New Mexico. This Ban goes into affect April of 2022, unless we fight now. All donations will fund legal teams and repeal process of SB 32, including education for the public. Please see the letter below from the Attorney in regards to future legal action against SB 32.
Dear Governor Grisham, Attorney General Balderas, Commissioner Hickey, and Director Sloane:
We, the undersigned organizations, write to you in opposition of New Mexico Senate Bill 32— Game and Fish and Wildlife Changes (SB 32). The provisions in SB 32 banning trapping and snaring on public lands will negatively impact the religious and ceremonial traditions a number of our members have enjoyed for generations. As such, we demand that this bill be vetoed when it is presented before the Governor.
While there are many benefits to trapping for wildlife management purposes, we write to specifically point out that SB 32, Section 4(H) provides an exception to “enrolled members of a federally recognized Indian nation, tribe or pueblo when trapping is conducted solely for religious or ceremonial purposes." There is no such allowance for tribal members of nonfederally recognized nations or tribes, for non-members of any Indian nation or tribe, for nonNative American adherents to Native American Religions, or for other religions or traditions that use trapping for religious or ceremonial purposes. Moreover, while SB 32 prohibits trapping on “public land,” Section 2(K) excludes “the interior of physical structures or land belonging to or held in trust for an Indian nation, tribe or pueblo.” There are no “religious or ceremonial purposes” derived from trapping anything in “the interior of physical structures.” The above provisions make it clear that the bill is blatantly discriminatory, violates equal protections, and unlawfully restricts many individuals’ free exercise of religion.
New Mexico statutes, including the purposed language under SB 32, which limit allowances for some individuals but not others based on religious grounds, must meet the requirements of the New Mexico Religious Freedom Restoration Act (NMRFRA),1 which is the state’s version of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA).2 Similar to the federal version, NMRFRA states that the government shall not restrict a person’s free exercise of religion unless “the application of the restriction to the person is essential to further a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.”
There was discussion at the New Mexico House Committee Hearing on March 13, 2020 that SB 32 should be permitted based on United States v. Wilgus, 638 F.3d 1274 (10th Cir. 2011). While this case was decided under the federal version of RFRA, the underlying policy is the same as both NMRFRA and RFRA implement the compelling governmental interest and least restrictive means test. Wilgus is a case regarding the collection and possession of eagle feathers, which was allowed for Native Americans, but not for non-Native Americans. Under the system in place in Wilgus, enrolled members of federally recognized tribes could apply for the feathers necessary to perform the rituals that form part of their faiths. Non-Native American adherents to the very same religions, however, were not only ineligible to apply, but were subject to criminal prosecution if they possessed eagle feathers at all. While the court held that the permitting process struck an appropriate balance between the government’s two compelling interests of protecting bald eagles and preserving the culture and religion of Native American tribes in the least restrictive manner, and therefore did not violate RFRA, it is vital to consider the limitations of this holding and the differences presented by SB 32.
First, the court in Wilgus found that the government has a compelling interest in protecting eagles because the bald eagle is a “national symbol.” By contrast, no furbearer in New Mexico operates as a symbol of this degree, and therefore it is not reasonable to suggest that protection of furbearers would be considered a compelling governmental interest. Additionally, the government explained it had a compelling interest in protecting the culture and religion of Native American tribes. While a compelling interest, the court explained that the permitting process was necessary to protect this interest because eagle feathers are a “very scarce resource.” In essence, the court explained that where “the demand for eagle feathers and parts by tribal members for their religious practices already greatly outstrips the supply available,” the permitting process was necessary to protect the culture and religion of Native American tribes. In the context of SB 32, however, there is no such limited supply of furbearing animals in New Mexico. There is no justification that a trapping ban for non-native individuals would be necessary to further the interest of protecting Native American culture and religion when supply is not limited, or that an outright ban on trapping would be the least restrictive means of doing so. Accordingly, where
1 N.M. Stat. Ann. § 28-22-1 et seq.
2 42 U.S.C.S. Section 2000bb et seq.
furbearing animals in New Mexico are not national symbols, and are not limited in supply, there is not a compelling governmental interest that could be served by an outright ban on trapping for non-native individuals. Therefore, SB 32 violates NMRFRA and the rights guaranteed by law to the citizens of New Mexico.
As a result, because current exemptions under SB 32 only apply to specific members of specific Native American religions, a wide range of New Mexico residents will be prevented from fully practicing their religions, rights, and ceremonies. Our organizations have members that fall under these wide-ranging categories, who will suffer greatly from this bill.
Should SB 32 be signed into law, our organizations will have no choice but to pursue the proper legal remedies. We will seek to have SB 32 deemed unconstitutional for violating NMRFRA as well as to recover all damages legally available.
For these reasons, we the undersigned organizations respectfully demand that New Mexico Senate Bill 32 bill be vetoed when it is presented to the Governor.
Sincerely,
New Mexico Trappers Association
National Trappers Association
Fur Takers of America
Dear Governor Grisham, Attorney General Balderas, Commissioner Hickey, and Director Sloane:
We, the undersigned organizations, write to you in opposition of New Mexico Senate Bill 32— Game and Fish and Wildlife Changes (SB 32). The provisions in SB 32 banning trapping and snaring on public lands will negatively impact the religious and ceremonial traditions a number of our members have enjoyed for generations. As such, we demand that this bill be vetoed when it is presented before the Governor.
While there are many benefits to trapping for wildlife management purposes, we write to specifically point out that SB 32, Section 4(H) provides an exception to “enrolled members of a federally recognized Indian nation, tribe or pueblo when trapping is conducted solely for religious or ceremonial purposes." There is no such allowance for tribal members of nonfederally recognized nations or tribes, for non-members of any Indian nation or tribe, for nonNative American adherents to Native American Religions, or for other religions or traditions that use trapping for religious or ceremonial purposes. Moreover, while SB 32 prohibits trapping on “public land,” Section 2(K) excludes “the interior of physical structures or land belonging to or held in trust for an Indian nation, tribe or pueblo.” There are no “religious or ceremonial purposes” derived from trapping anything in “the interior of physical structures.” The above provisions make it clear that the bill is blatantly discriminatory, violates equal protections, and unlawfully restricts many individuals’ free exercise of religion.
New Mexico statutes, including the purposed language under SB 32, which limit allowances for some individuals but not others based on religious grounds, must meet the requirements of the New Mexico Religious Freedom Restoration Act (NMRFRA),1 which is the state’s version of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA).2 Similar to the federal version, NMRFRA states that the government shall not restrict a person’s free exercise of religion unless “the application of the restriction to the person is essential to further a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.”
There was discussion at the New Mexico House Committee Hearing on March 13, 2020 that SB 32 should be permitted based on United States v. Wilgus, 638 F.3d 1274 (10th Cir. 2011). While this case was decided under the federal version of RFRA, the underlying policy is the same as both NMRFRA and RFRA implement the compelling governmental interest and least restrictive means test. Wilgus is a case regarding the collection and possession of eagle feathers, which was allowed for Native Americans, but not for non-Native Americans. Under the system in place in Wilgus, enrolled members of federally recognized tribes could apply for the feathers necessary to perform the rituals that form part of their faiths. Non-Native American adherents to the very same religions, however, were not only ineligible to apply, but were subject to criminal prosecution if they possessed eagle feathers at all. While the court held that the permitting process struck an appropriate balance between the government’s two compelling interests of protecting bald eagles and preserving the culture and religion of Native American tribes in the least restrictive manner, and therefore did not violate RFRA, it is vital to consider the limitations of this holding and the differences presented by SB 32.
First, the court in Wilgus found that the government has a compelling interest in protecting eagles because the bald eagle is a “national symbol.” By contrast, no furbearer in New Mexico operates as a symbol of this degree, and therefore it is not reasonable to suggest that protection of furbearers would be considered a compelling governmental interest. Additionally, the government explained it had a compelling interest in protecting the culture and religion of Native American tribes. While a compelling interest, the court explained that the permitting process was necessary to protect this interest because eagle feathers are a “very scarce resource.” In essence, the court explained that where “the demand for eagle feathers and parts by tribal members for their religious practices already greatly outstrips the supply available,” the permitting process was necessary to protect the culture and religion of Native American tribes. In the context of SB 32, however, there is no such limited supply of furbearing animals in New Mexico. There is no justification that a trapping ban for non-native individuals would be necessary to further the interest of protecting Native American culture and religion when supply is not limited, or that an outright ban on trapping would be the least restrictive means of doing so. Accordingly, where
1 N.M. Stat. Ann. § 28-22-1 et seq.
2 42 U.S.C.S. Section 2000bb et seq.
furbearing animals in New Mexico are not national symbols, and are not limited in supply, there is not a compelling governmental interest that could be served by an outright ban on trapping for non-native individuals. Therefore, SB 32 violates NMRFRA and the rights guaranteed by law to the citizens of New Mexico.
As a result, because current exemptions under SB 32 only apply to specific members of specific Native American religions, a wide range of New Mexico residents will be prevented from fully practicing their religions, rights, and ceremonies. Our organizations have members that fall under these wide-ranging categories, who will suffer greatly from this bill.
Should SB 32 be signed into law, our organizations will have no choice but to pursue the proper legal remedies. We will seek to have SB 32 deemed unconstitutional for violating NMRFRA as well as to recover all damages legally available.
For these reasons, we the undersigned organizations respectfully demand that New Mexico Senate Bill 32 bill be vetoed when it is presented to the Governor.
Sincerely,
New Mexico Trappers Association
National Trappers Association
Fur Takers of America
Organizer
JOSHUA STEPHENSON
Organizer
Aztec, NM
New Mexico Trappers Association
Beneficiary