October 28, 2026.
New Mexico Pueblos say proposed Eagle Take would harm their religious practices; federal officials say the authorized activity would have negligible effects on regional eagle populations.
Two federally recognized Tribal Nations in New Mexico are challenging a National Park Service decision that would allow the Pueblo of Jemez to conduct a ceremonial eagle take at Valles Caldera National Preserve, raising questions about competing religious practices, federal environmental review and the protection of culturally significant places.
The Pueblo of Santa Clara and Pueblo of Zia filed suit against federal agencies seeking to prevent the proposed activity. The plaintiffs argue that allowing an eagle to be taken within the preserve would harm their own religious and cultural relationships with eagles and the landscape. They also challenge the federal government's environmental and historic-preservation review.
The dispute is not simply over whether one tribe may practice its religion. It raises a difficult question for federal agencies: how should the government respond when one Tribal Nation's religious practice conflicts with the religious beliefs and cultural responsibilities of other Tribal Nations connected to the same place?
The lawsuit does not establish that the Pueblo of Jemez's religious practices are illegitimate, nor does it establish that the federal agencies violated the law. Those issues are part of the legal dispute.
What the federal government approved.
The National Park Service prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) to evaluate the Pueblo of Jemez's request for a special use permit to conduct a ceremonial take of one adult bald or golden eagle at Valles Caldera National Preserve.
In October 2026, the Park Service signed a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) and selected the proposed action. The decision states that the NPS will issue a special use permit allowing the Pueblo of Jemez to access the preserve and conduct the activity, subject to conditions.
The federal authorization involves two separate approvals. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued the Pueblo of Jemez a Native American Eagle Take for Religious Purposes permit on July 20, 2026. The National Park Service's separate special use permit governs access to and activity within the preserve.
The NPS decision authorizes the ceremonial take of one adult bald or golden eagle during a period running from October 28 through November 27, 2026. A bald eagle cannot be taken before November 1 under the terms of the Fish and Wildlife Service permit.
The selected action also provides for a temporary public closure of approximately 5,751 acres in the preserve's northwest corner for about 30 days. The permit includes restrictions on travel, camping, ground disturbance, waste disposal and other activities intended to protect park resources.
The FONSI is the agency's environmental determination; it is not itself the special use permit. The NPS decision says the agency will issue that permit.
The plaintiffs' religious and cultural objections.
The Pueblo of Santa Clara and Pueblo of Zia contend that the proposed eagle take would adversely affect their own religious and cultural practices associated with eagles and Valles Caldera.
Their objections reflect a broader reality: Tribal Nations do not necessarily share identical religious teachings or ceremonial practices. Eagles may hold profound spiritual significance across different Native communities, while the appropriate treatment of the birds can differ.
For some communities, a living eagle is central to religious practice and must be treated with particular protections. Other communities have traditions that involve the ceremonial taking of an eagle under specific circumstances. Still others rely on feathers or other materials obtained without killing a living bird.
The disagreement should not be reduced to a claim that one tradition is more authentic or more important than another. Each Tribal Nation has its own religious responsibilities, teachings and sovereign authority to determine its cultural practices.
The plaintiffs' position is that the federal government's decision does not adequately account for the effect the proposed activity would have on their religious exercise and cultural interests at the preserve. Their arguments are allegations in the litigation, not findings by a court.
What the Park Service says about eagle populations.
One important point in the dispute is whether the environmental review adequately evaluates the potential impact on eagles.
The plaintiffs have challenged the adequacy of the Park Service's population analysis. However, the agency's Environmental Assessment and FONSI do contain population information and explain why the NPS believes the proposed take would not significantly affect local or regional eagle populations.
The NPS relies on U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service estimates for the broader Bird Conservation Region 16, which includes northwestern New Mexico, as well as local-area population thresholds.
The agency reports that bald eagle numbers in the region increased by an estimated 11 percent annually from 2000 to 2022. It describes golden eagle numbers in the region as generally stable, while acknowledging that some demographic modeling suggests a possible slow decline.
The NPS also cites local-area population thresholds of 87 golden eagles and 94.9 bald eagles. It concludes that the potential take of one eagle would be below those thresholds and would have negligible effects on the local-area and broader regional populations.
The agency notes, however, that a resident golden eagle could have a different local impact than a migratory eagle. It also acknowledges that eagles move across park boundaries and that the birds using the preserve can vary from year to year.
These are the federal government's conclusions, not a judicial determination that the analysis is sufficient. The plaintiffs' challenge concerns whether the agency's methods, evidence and consideration of other effects meet the requirements of federal law.
Questions raised by the 2023 activity.
The NPS decision also discusses an earlier ceremonial period in November 2023 and the investigation that followed.
According to the 2026 decision, Pueblo of Jemez legal counsel informed the Department of the Interior that four eagles had been taken during the 2023 ceremonial period: one within Valles Caldera and three on adjacent National Forest System lands.
Separately, wildlife material collected by NPS investigators within the permitted area was submitted to a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service forensic laboratory. The final analysis identified material representing at least four golden eagles and one bald eagle, as well as a red-tailed hawk and other wildlife.
Investigators also documented recent motorized travel connecting the campsite and eagle-capture areas. The investigation concluded that the evidence suggested wildlife take within the preserve may have exceeded the scope of the 2023 NPS permit.
The Park Service expressly states that those investigative conclusions were not adjudicated. The investigation did not identify the individual or individuals responsible, and the available evidence did not conclusively establish the location or circumstances of each wildlife take.
The agency says it considered this information when developing the 2026 permit conditions, including limits on the number of eagles, reporting requirements, restrictions on motorized travel and ground disturbance, and post-activity compliance reviews.
It would therefore be inaccurate to describe the 2023 investigation as a final finding that the Pueblo of Jemez violated its permit. The NPS document describes evidence of possible activity beyond the permit's scope, while also explaining the limits of what investigators established.
Consultation did not resolve the disagreement.
The National Historic Preservation Act requires federal agencies to consider effects on historic properties and consult with appropriate parties, including Tribal Nations, during applicable federal review processes.
The 2026 NPS decision confirms that consultation occurred. The New Mexico State Historic Preservation Officer concurred with the Park Service's finding of no adverse effect on historic properties, assuming the permit conditions were followed. However, consulting Tribal Nations objected to that finding.
The NPS says it sought an opinion from the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation after objections could not be resolved through additional consultation.
This distinction matters. It would be incorrect to say that Santa Clara and Zia were not consulted at all during the 2026 review. The federal record indicates that consultation took place, but it did not produce agreement.
The plaintiffs also raise concerns about the earlier 2023 process, when they say they were not notified before the prior permit was issued. That earlier dispute should be distinguished from the consultation conducted for the 2026 decision.
Different Tribal Nations, different eagle teachings.
The federal government's own 2016 Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for the Eagle Rule Revision documents a range of Tribal Nation perspectives on eagles and religious use.
The report describes differing cultural practices, including traditions involving the ceremonial taking of live eagles and traditions that emphasize protection of the birds. It also discusses the use of feathers and other eagle materials and the importance of consultation with Tribal Nations.
Historical federal permit records identify several Tribal Nations that received religious eagle-take authorizations during the period examined. Those records include the Hopi Tribe, Taos Pueblo, Pueblo of Isleta, Navajo Nation, Pueblo of Pojoaque, Pueblo of Jemez, Northern Arapaho Tribe and Jicarilla Apache Nation.
Those historical authorizations should not be interpreted as a current list of participating tribes, nor as evidence that every tribe used the full number of eagles authorized. A permit establishes what federal officials allowed, not necessarily what was actually taken or what a Tribal Nation's present-day practice may be.
Likewise, the existence of tribal wildlife protections does not automatically establish that a Tribal Nation has formally opposed all ceremonial eagle take. Federal records do not provide a reliable nationwide count of Tribal Nations that support or oppose the practice.
The Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians has published its own explanation of the spiritual significance of the Eagle in Anishinaabe teachings. In an August 26, 2020 cultural article, the Tribe describes Migizi as a revered being and explains the teaching that the eagle carries prayers offered with tobacco, or sema, to the Creator, Gchi Manidoo, in Ishpeming, or the Above.
That teaching provides an example of the spiritual relationship with eagles held within an Anishinaabe community.
Federal law and the limits of the dispute.
The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act generally prohibits the taking, possession or transportation of bald and golden eagles and their parts, except as authorized under federal regulations.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service administers permits for certain religious purposes, including permits for eligible members of federally recognized Tribal Nations. The federal permit process does not eliminate the separate responsibility of the National Park Service to manage activities on lands under its jurisdiction.
The National Environmental Policy Act requires federal agencies to evaluate environmental effects before taking covered actions. The National Historic Preservation Act establishes procedures for considering effects on historic properties and consulting with relevant parties. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act restricts the federal government from substantially burdening religious exercise unless the government meets the law's demanding legal standard.
The plaintiffs' case brings these legal responsibilities into the same dispute. The question is not only whether the federal government may authorize a religious eagle take under wildlife law, but whether the particular decision and its review process satisfy the other applicable federal obligations.
The federal agencies' position, as reflected in the NPS decision, is that the activity can proceed under specified conditions without significant environmental or historic-resource impacts. The plaintiffs dispute whether those conditions and findings adequately address their religious and cultural concerns.
The legal challenge will test how those obligations are balanced when the religious practices and cultural interests of different Tribal Nations conflict.
A dispute with implications beyond New Mexico.
The dispute also highlights the limits of treating Tribal Nations as though they hold a single shared position on religious and cultural matters.
Federal agencies have responsibilities under wildlife-protection laws, environmental review requirements, historic-preservation procedures and laws protecting religious exercise. Those responsibilities can intersect when different Tribal Nations maintain distinct teachings and practices connected to the same landscape.
The National Park Service's decision acknowledges that some Tribal Nations may regard the proposed ceremonial activity as adverse to resources of cultural, historical or religious significance, even while the agency concludes that the activity would not cause significant impacts under its environmental review.
That acknowledgment is important. A finding that an activity will not significantly affect a regional eagle population does not, by itself, resolve the religious and cultural concerns raised by other Tribal Nations.
The Pueblo of Santa Clara and Pueblo of Zia are asking the federal government and the courts to recognize that distinction. The Pueblo of Jemez, meanwhile, has sought federal authorization for a religious practice it considers important to its own traditions.
The outcome could have implications for how federal agencies evaluate future requests involving religious practices, wildlife protections and places that hold significance for multiple Tribal Nations. At the center of the case is a question that cannot be answered by population estimates alone: how should the federal government protect the rights and responsibilities of sovereign Tribal Nations when their religious traditions are in conflict?
