Opinion ID: 3013873
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: 2962, 2963. Annual fees ranging from $25

Text: Lakota Indians believe that black to $300 are collected for these permits, see bears protect the Earth, sanctify religious 34 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 2904, and the ceremonies, and imbue worshipers with revenues from all of these fees comprise -2- about one percent of the Game fee is $50. See 34 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § Commission’s annual intake. 2904. Although persons wishing to keep In 1998, Blackhawk sought an wildlife in captivity must generally obtain exemption from the permit fee on the a menagerie or exotic wildlife possession ground that he possessed the bears for permit and pay the requisite fee, see 34 Pa. Native American religious purposes. After Cons. Stat. Ann. §§ 2904, 2964(c)(1), the making an inquiry to the Bureau of Indian Code excludes from these requirements Affairs, Merluzzi informed Blackhawk most zoos and all “[n]ationally recognized that Native Americans who possess a circus[es].” 34 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § Bureau of Indian Affairs identification 2965(a)(1)–(3). In addition, the director of card are entitled to some exemptions under the Game Commission is authorized to federal law, but Blackhawk did not possess waive a permit fee “where hardship or such a card. Blackhawk paid the 1998 fee extraordinary circumstance warrants,” so under protest after citing his religious long as the waiver is “consistent with purpose and alleging financial hardship. sound game or wildlife management He then wrote to his representative in the activities or the intent of [the Game and state legislature, Keith McCall, and Wildlife Code]” 34 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § McCall intervened and asked Commission 2901(d). director Vernon Ross to oversee the situation personally. On October 6, 1999, From 1995 to 1999, Blackhawk Blackhawk received a letter from obtained permits to own the bears. At Commission officials Thomas Littwin and first, he acquired a “menagerie permit,” David Overcash informing him that he did but bears are classified under the Game not qualify for a waiver under 34 Pa. Cons. and Wildlife Code as “exotic wildlife,” see Stat. Ann. § 2901(d) because the 34 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 2961, and special Commission regarded the keeping of wild permits are required for those wishing to animals in captivity as inconsistent with deal in or possess exotic wildlife. See 34 sound game and wildlife management Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. §§ 2904, 2962, 2963. activities unless the animals were intended Beginning in 1997, the Game Commission for release into the wild. Since Timber insisted that Blackhawk obtain an exotic and Tundra had been declawed and had wildlife dealer permit, which costs $200 been kept in captivity their entire lives, per year, see 34 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § they could not be released into the wild. 2904, because Frederick Merluzzi, a “Thus, in the Commission’s view, wildlife conservation officer, believed that Blackhawk [was] not entitled to an Blackhawk intended to breed the bears and exemption regardless of his financial sell their cubs. If Blackhawk did not wish circumstanc es.” Black Hawk v. to deal in bears but merely to keep them, Pennsylvania, 225 F. Supp. 2d 465, 470 he needed only an exotic wildlife (M.D. Pa. 2002). The letter from Littwin possession permit, for which the annual -3- and Overcash told Blackhawk that, tested for rabies. See 28 Pa. Code § because his permit had expired on June 30, 27.103(f)(2). The District Court enjoined 1999, if he still possessed the bears he was the Commission from destroying the bears subject to prosecution. and ordered their return. See Black Hawk v. Pennsylvania, 114 F. Supp. 2d 327 Blackhawk responded by again (M.D. Pa. 2000). requesting a waiver, and in November of 1999, Merluzzi filed criminal charges When the District Court reached the against Blackhawk for failing to renew. merits of the civil case, it held that the Game Commission’s refusal to exempt Blackhawk filed an action under 42 religiously motivated activities from the U.S.C. § 1983, seeking to enjoin the Game permit fee violated the First Amendment’s Commission from assessing the fee or Free Exercise Clause. See Black Hawk, confiscating the bears and also seeking 225 F. Supp. 2d at 465. The Court held money damages from Merluzzi, Overcash, that the permit fee requirement was not a Littwin, Hambley, and Ross. Prior to the “‘valid and neutral law of general District Court’s disposition of the case, a applicability’” under Employment Div., state magistrate found Blackhawk guilty of Dep’t of Human Resources of Oregon v. the criminal charges and assessed a Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 879 (1990), because $178,400 fine, which he later reduced to the statutory waiver established a “‘system $6,442. However, the Court of Common of individualized exceptions.’” Black Pleas stayed the criminal case pending a Hawk, 225 F. Supp. 2d at 473. The Court ruling on Blackhawk’s § 1983 action. accordingly applied strict scrutiny to the In August of 2000, Blackhawk waiver scheme, id. at 472–73, and held discovered that the bears’ enclosure had that the scheme could not withstand strict been vandalized, that the locks on the scrutiny because the Commission was enclosure had been cut, and that the unable to “demonstrate a compelling animals were missing. A neighbor interest in refusing to grant a religious encountered Tundra on his property and exemption.” Id. at 477. The District Court was attempting to lead the bear back to the a c co r d i n g l y e n jo i n e d t h e G a m e pen when Tundra bit him. The neighbor Commission from charging Blackhawk a alerted the Game Commission, which permit fee. However, the Court declined tracked the bears and tranquilized them. to hold the individual defendants liable An official who was attempting to restrain under § 1983 because it found that Tundra was also bitten by the bear, but the Merluzzi and Hambley were not personally Commission succeeded in taking both responsible for violating Blackhawk’s bears into custody. It then sought to rights and that Ross, Littwin, and destroy the bears pursuant to a regulation Overcash were entitled to qualified requiring wild animals who have bitten immunity. humans to be decapitated in order to be On appeal, the Commission argues -4- that the First Amendment does not entitle however, that most laws that burden Blackhawk to a waiver, and Blackhawk religiously motivated conduct stand on a contends that the District Court erred in different footing. Rejecting the argument granting summary judgment in favor of the that such laws must generally satisfy strict individual defendants. We exercise scrutiny, the Court concluded that the First plenary review over a grant of summary Amendment is not ordinarily offended by judgment, Northview Motors, Inc. v. “neutral” and “generally applicable” laws Chrysler Motors Corp., 227 F.3d 78, that merely have “the incidental effect” of 87–88 (3d Cir. 2000), and likewise review burdening religiously motivated conduct. de novo the District Court’s interpretation 494 U.S. 878, 879, 881. of the Constitution. United States v. The Court recognized several Scarfo, 263 F.3d 80, 91 (3d Cir. 2001). exceptions to this rule. First, the Court did