## Facts

- L. Doug Allard, an enrolled member of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, dealt in Indian artifacts.
- Allard was charged under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, 16 U.S.C. § 668(a), for selling golden eagle feathers.
- The feathers were parts of eagle-feather bonnets that Allard had purchased; they were not shown to have been taken by Allard through treaty-protected hunting.
- A jury found Allard guilty on two counts charging sales of golden eagle feathers.
- After the verdict, Allard moved in arrest of judgment and for a new trial, arguing treaty protection, due process violations, instructional error, and impairment of property interests.

## Issues

1. Whether the Treaty of Hell Gate’s hunting privilege barred prosecution under 16 U.S.C. § 668(a) for selling golden eagle feathers.
2. Whether Congress, through amendments to the eagle protection laws (including the 1962 amendments), abrogated any treaty-based rights to take eagles.
3. Whether § 668(a) requires proof that a defendant knew his conduct was illegal, and whether the jury instructions or exclusion of trade-custom evidence violated due process.
4. Whether prohibiting sale of eagle feathers unlawfully deprived Allard of property rights in the feathers in violation of due process.

## Decision

- The court denied the motion in arrest of judgment and the motion for a new trial.
- The Treaty of Hell Gate did not shield Allard because the feathers were not shown to be derived from treaty-protected hunting.
- Even if treaty hunting rights were implicated, Congress abrogated any such rights as to eagles through later federal legislation, including the 1962 amendments.
- Section 668(a) does not require proof that the defendant knew the sale was unlawful; ignorance of the law was not a defense.
- Excluding evidence about customary practices in the artifact trade and the challenged instruction did not warrant a new trial because knowledge of illegality was not an element.
- Restricting sale of eagle parts was a permissible conservation measure and did not violate due process as an impermissible deprivation of property.

## Legal Principles

- Treaty hunting privileges do not bar prosecution for commercial sales of protected wildlife parts when the defendant cannot show the items were taken pursuant to treaty-protected hunting.
- Congress may abrogate treaty rights by subsequent legislation when it clearly intends the later statute to apply notwithstanding treaties; an Indian permit scheme in the statute may evidence that intent.
- The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act offense for selling protected eagle parts is a regulatory crime that does not require proof of knowledge that the conduct is illegal.
- A statutory prohibition on sale of protected wildlife parts can be a valid restriction on incidents of ownership when reasonably related to conservation and is not, on that basis alone, a due process violation.

## Conclusion

The district court upheld Allard’s convictions for selling golden eagle feathers, holding that treaty hunting provisions did not protect the sales at issue, any eagle-related treaty rights were superseded by later federal legislation, and § 668(a) imposes liability without requiring proof that the seller knew the conduct was unlawful.


United States v. Allard, 397 F. Supp. 429 (D. Mont. 1975)