October 29, 2026. 

Ruling recognizes religious-freedom claims brought by Santa Clara and Zia Pueblos; hearing scheduled for November 9.

A federal judge in New Mexico has temporarily blocked the National Park Service from issuing a special-use permit that would allow the Pueblo of Jemez to conduct a ceremonial take of one bald or golden eagle within Valles Caldera National Preserve.

U.S. District Judge Kea W. Riggs granted an emergency request from the Pueblo of Santa Clara and Pueblo of Zia, finding that allowing an eagle to be taken within the preserve would substantially burden the two Pueblos’ religious practices.

The October 28 amended order grants a temporary restraining order lasting 13 days, through November 10, 2026. The court scheduled a hearing for November 9 at 10 a.m. to consider whether a preliminary injunction should be issued. 

The decision is a significant development in the dispute previously reported by the Sault Tribe Guardian. The original lawsuit challenged the National Park Service’s environmental review and its proposed authorization of the ceremonial eagle take. The new ruling addresses the immediate religious-freedom concerns while the broader lawsuit continues.

Judge finds likely violation of federal religious-freedom protections.

The court’s decision centers on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), a federal law that generally prohibits the government from substantially burdening religious exercise unless it can demonstrate that the burden is the least restrictive means of advancing a compelling governmental interest.

Judge Riggs found that Santa Clara and Zia had demonstrated a likelihood of success on their RFRA claim.

The Pueblos maintain that living bald and golden eagles are essential to their religious practices and that the presence of unharmed eagles contributes to the sacredness of Valles Caldera. The judge concluded that taking even one eagle from the preserve would substantially burden their sincerely held religious beliefs because their religious practices depend on access to living eagles in the area.

The court cited an earlier Tenth Circuit decision involving access to sacred eagle feathers, recognizing that restrictions affecting access to religiously significant eagles can substantially interfere with religious exercise.

Court recognizes Jemez Pueblo’s religious rights.

The ruling also expressly recognizes that the Pueblo of Jemez has its own protected religious interests in conducting ceremonial eagle takes.

“Just like the preservation of eagles is core to Plaintiffs’ religious practices, eagle taking is core to Jemez Pueblo’s religious exercise,” Judge Riggs wrote.

The judge acknowledged that the federal government has a compelling interest in allowing Jemez Pueblo to obtain eagles for religious purposes. However, the court found that the government could accommodate Jemez Pueblo’s religious practices without authorizing an eagle take within Valles Caldera.

A separate U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service permit authorizes Jemez Pueblo to take up to eight bald or golden eagles across five New Mexico counties: Los Alamos, Rio Arriba, Sandoval, San Miguel and Santa Fe. That permit does not independently authorize eagle taking within Valles Caldera, which is under National Park Service jurisdiction.

The judge concluded that allowing eagle takes at other locations covered by the Fish and Wildlife Service authorization would provide a less restrictive alternative.

“Nothing in the record suggests that this practice must be exercised within Valles Caldera,” the judge wrote.

What the order actually prohibits.

The operative portion of the amended order directs the National Park Service not to issue the special-use permit to Jemez Pueblo for 13 days, through November 10.

The distinction between the two federal authorizations is important. The court’s order addresses the National Park Service authorization required for activity within the preserve. It does not cancel the separate Fish and Wildlife Service eagle-take permit.

The proposed National Park Service authorization covered one adult bald or golden eagle during a period running from October 28 through November 27, 2026. Under the Fish and Wildlife Service permit, bald eagle taking could not begin before November 1.

The judge found that delaying the preserve-specific authorization would cause little harm to the federal government or Jemez Pueblo while the court considered the dispute. If the federal government ultimately prevails at the preliminary injunction hearing, more than two weeks would remain in the proposed National Park Service authorization period.

Conversely, the judge found that allowing the activity to proceed before the court could fully consider the dispute could cause irreparable harm to Santa Clara and Zia.

Environmental and administrative claims remain unresolved.

Although the lawsuit also challenges the federal government’s actions under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the October 28 order does not resolve those claims.

Judge Riggs stated that because the plaintiffs had demonstrated a likelihood of success on their Religious Freedom Restoration Act claim, the court did not need to evaluate their likelihood of success under the APA at this stage.

The court has not issued a final ruling on whether the National Park Service’s environmental assessment or Finding of No Significant Impact violated federal law. The temporary restraining order is not a final judgment on the merits of the lawsuit. It preserves the situation while the court considers whether additional preliminary injunctive relief is appropriate.

November 9 hearing is the next major development.

The court will hear arguments on November 9, 2026, at 10 a.m., before the temporary restraining order expires on November 10. The hearing will address whether the court should issue a preliminary injunction extending the restrictions while the litigation proceeds.

The case raises a broader question for federal agencies responsible for administering public lands: how should the government accommodate the religious practices of multiple Tribal Nations when those practices involve different relationships and responsibilities concerning the same culturally and spiritually significant landscape?

The judge’s order recognizes that both the preservation of living eagles and the ceremonial taking of eagles are central to the respective religious practices involved in this dispute.

For now, the National Park Service cannot issue the preserve-specific special-use permit. The separate Fish and Wildlife Service authorization remains in place, and the underlying legal challenge continues.

Case: Pueblo of Santa Clara and Pueblo of Zia v. National Park Service et al., No. 1:26-cv-03593-KWR-JMR, U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico.

Advertiser Disclosures