In Texas last March, members of the Lipan Apache tribe gathered for a ritual dance, which, in accordance with the tribe’s traditions, involved eagle feathers. Unbeknownst to the participants, a polite observer was in fact an undercover agent for the Fish and Wildlife Service—investigating the possession of contraband—who attempted to confiscate the feathers and threatened the pastor presiding over the ceremony with fines or even prison. Mitchell Rocklin and David Mehl comment:

Contrary to popular opinion, most religious liberty cases do not involve same-sex marriage, abortion, or anti-discrimination laws. They involve religious believers like [the Lipan Apache] Pastor Robert Soto who simply want the government to leave them alone so they can observe their faith in peace.

Most of the feathers the agent confiscated came from eagles and other birds covered by the Migratory Birds Treaty Act. This law prohibits possessing feathers that come from a long list of birds. Because many Native Americans use eagle feathers in religious and cultural ceremonies, the Department of the Interior created an exception that allows Native Americans to possess them.

But there’s a catch. The exception is limited to members of federally registered tribes, and not all Native Americans belong to these tribes. The Lipan Apache Tribe of Texas, for example, is recognized by historians, anthropologists, and the state of Texas, but not by the federal government. . . . Consequently, its members cannot legally own eagle feathers. The federal government does not doubt the religiosity of these tribes’ members. Nevertheless, it refuses to allow them to practice their faith.

As members of a minority faith, Jews have a particular interest in ensuring that religious-liberty protections cover every American.

Surveying news websites and social media on Sunday morning, I immediately found some intelligent and well-informed observers arguing that Iran deliberately warned the U.S. of its pending assault on Israel, and calibrated it so that there would be few casualties and minimal destructiveness, thus hoping to avoid major retaliation. In other words, this massive barrage was a face-saving gesture by the ayatollahs. Others disagreed. Brian Carter and Frederick W. Kagan put the issue to rest:

The Iranian April 13 missile-drone attack on Israel was very likely intended to cause significant damage below the threshold that would trigger a massive Israeli response. The attack was designed to succeed, not to fail. The strike package was modeled on those the Russians have used repeatedly against Ukraine to great effect. The attack caused more limited damage than intended likely because the Iranians underestimated the tremendous advantages Israel has in defending against such strikes compared with Ukraine.

But that isn’t to say that Tehran achieved nothing:

The lessons that Iran will draw from this attack will allow it to build more successful strike packages in the future. The attack probably helped Iran identify the relative strengths and weaknesses of the Israeli air-defense system. Iran will likely also share the lessons it learned in this attack with Russia.

Iran’s ability to penetrate Israeli air defenses with even a small number of large ballistic missiles presents serious security concerns for Israel. The only Iranian missiles that got through hit an Israeli military base, limiting the damage, but a future strike in which several ballistic missiles penetrate Israeli air defenses and hit Tel Aviv or Haifa could cause significant civilian casualties and damage to civilian infrastructure, including ports and energy. . . . Israel and its partners should not emerge from this successful defense with any sense of complacency.