## Facts

- Carlos Frank, a Central Alaska Athabascan and resident of Minto, participated in preparations for a funeral potlatch following the death of a village member in October 1975.
- The funeral potlatch was a multi-day religious ceremony culminating in a communal feast after burial; burial was delayed to allow travel by relatives and preparation of food.
- Frank and other men formed hunting parties to obtain moose meat, believing existing supplies were insufficient for a proper potlatch; one cow moose was taken, and Frank helped transport it to Minto, where a large group attended the feast.
- Alaska charged Frank with unlawful transportation of game illegally taken, in violation of 5 AAC 81.140(b), because the moose was taken out of season and there was no open season for cow moose.
- Frank admitted transporting the moose but asserted a religious-freedom defense under the First Amendment and Article I, § 4 of the Alaska Constitution.
- After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court found the funeral potlatch was integral to Athabascan religious belief and that moose was central to diet and desirable for the ceremony, but not strictly required; the court convicted Frank and imposed jail time (partly suspended), a fine (partly suspended), probation, and a hunting-license suspension.

## Issues

1. Whether applying 5 AAC 81.140(b) to Frank’s potlatch-related conduct violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and Article I, § 4 of the Alaska Constitution.
2. Whether the State proved a compelling interest and necessity (including lack of less restrictive alternatives) sufficient to justify burdening Frank’s religiously motivated conduct.

## Decision

- The Alaska Supreme Court reversed the conviction.
- The court held that Frank’s conduct was protected by the free exercise guarantees of the federal and Alaska constitutions.
- The court concluded the State failed to justify prohibiting the conduct under a compelling-interest/least-restrictive-means analysis, given the limited and infrequent nature of the claimed religious practice and the record presented.

## Legal Principles

- Free exercise protection applies when a defendant shows sincere religious belief and religiously motivated conduct, and the challenged law substantially burdens that exercise.
- A neutral, generally applicable law may be unconstitutional as applied if it substantially burdens religious practice and the government fails to prove a compelling interest in prohibiting the specific conduct.
- The government must also show the restriction is necessary and that less restrictive means of achieving the governmental interest are unavailable.
- Under Article I, § 4 of the Alaska Constitution, free exercise protection is at least as strong as the First Amendment and may require accommodation of religious practices despite generally applicable regulations.

## Conclusion

The Alaska Supreme Court held that enforcing the game-transport regulation against Frank for conduct connected to a funeral potlatch violated free exercise protections because the State did not demonstrate a compelling, necessary justification or the absence of workable, less restrictive accommodations, and it therefore reversed his conviction.


Frank v. State, 604 P.2d 1068 (Alaska 1979)