## Facts

- The United States charged James E. Billie, a Seminole Tribe member and tribal chairman, in a two-count information for (1) taking a Florida panther and (2) possessing, carrying, and transporting the panther, in violation of the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
- The alleged conduct occurred on or about November 11, 1983, on the Seminole Indian Reservation in Florida.
- The Florida panther (felis concolor coryi) was listed as an endangered subspecies under the ESA.
- The government alleged Billie shot and killed the panther and later possessed and transported parts of it.
- Billie asserted the taking and use of the panther was connected to Seminole cultural and religious practices.

## Issues

1. Whether the ESA abrogates any Seminole treaty or aboriginal hunting rights to take an endangered species on the reservation.
2. Whether applying the ESA to Billie’s alleged taking and possession of a Florida panther violates the Free Exercise Clause.
3. Whether Billie established unconstitutional selective prosecution based on national origin.
4. Whether the information should be dismissed because (a) the ESA requires a different mens rea than alleged, or (b) the two counts are multiplicitous.

## Decision

- All motions to dismiss were denied, and the prosecution was permitted to proceed.
- The ESA was held to abrogate any conflicting Seminole treaty or aboriginal right to take the endangered Florida panther.
- Application of the ESA to Billie’s alleged conduct did not violate the Free Exercise Clause.
- The selective prosecution claim was denied for failure of proof.
- The court rejected dismissal based on mens rea and multiplicity challenges.

## Legal Principles

- Indian treaty or aboriginal hunting rights may be overridden only where Congress provided clear evidence it considered the conflict and chose to abrogate those rights; the ESA satisfies this standard as applied to taking endangered species.
- The ESA’s prohibitions on taking, possessing, carrying, and transporting endangered species apply as a comprehensive scheme with narrow statutory exceptions, and lack of a tribal exemption may support a finding of abrogation.
- Neutral, generally applicable conservation laws may be enforced despite incidental burdens on religious practices where the government’s interest is compelling and the statutory scheme is the means selected by Congress.
- Selective prosecution requires proof of both discriminatory effect and discriminatory purpose; failure to meet that burden defeats dismissal.
- Separate statutory prohibitions for taking and for possession/transportation may be charged as distinct offenses; disputes about the precise scope of “knowing” violations typically do not warrant dismissal at the pleading stage.

## Conclusion

The court refused to dismiss ESA charges against a Seminole tribal member for allegedly killing and possessing a Florida panther on the reservation, holding that Congress intended the ESA to override conflicting tribal hunting rights, that ESA enforcement did not violate free exercise rights, and that the defendant failed to prove selective prosecution or grounds for dismissal based on mens rea or multiplicity.


United States v. Billie, 667 F. Supp. 1485 (S.D. Fla. 1987)