FBI Agents Have Qualified Immunity in Suit by Muslims Placed on No-Fly List for Refusing to Spy on Their Communities

On remand from the U.S. Supreme Court (see prior posting), a New York federal district court in Tanvir v. Tanzin, (SD NY, Feb. 24, 2023), held that FBI agents who placed or kept plaintiffs on the federal no-fly list in retaliation for their refusal to act as informants on their Muslim communities have qualified immunity in a suit for damages under RFRA. Plaintiffs contend that gathering information on fellow Muslims contravenes their religious beliefs.  The court concluded that FBI agents had not violated a clearly established law, saying in part:

The Court is sympathetic to Plaintiffs, who claim that, despite never posing a threat to aviation security, they were, for years, unable to visit ailing loved ones outside of the United States, burdened financially with the loss of job opportunities which required them to travel, and repeatedly forced to endure the basic indignity of being denied boarding passes for flights to which they had legitimately purchased tickets. Accepting their allegations as true, Plaintiffs were subjected to this treatment by way of the FBI’s misuse of the No Fly List simply because they were Muslim, and because they refused to spy on other members of their faith. 

Nevertheless—and notwithstanding varied criticisms of the doctrine of qualified immunity, the Court is required to apply the law faithfully to the issues before it....

At the time of Defendants’ alleged activity, no federal court had addressed claims—let alone actually held—that law enforcement pressuring individuals to inform on members of their religious communities through retaliatory or coercive means substantially burdened their religious exercise in violation of RFRA. Plaintiffs point to four cases in an attempt to make out their claim of clearly established law at the time of the alleged violations, but each of those cases are plainly distinguishable.....

National Archives Sued for Requiring Visitors to Remove Pro-Life Apparel

Suit was filed this week in the D.C. federal district court by three anti-abortion proponents who visited the National Archives on the day of the March for Life in Washington. The complaint (full text) in Tamara R. v. National Archives and Records Administration, (D DC, filed 2/8/2023) alleges in part:

5. While in the National Archives, Plaintiffs were subject to a pattern of ongoing misconduct by federal government officials, specifically National Archives security officers, Defendants John Does and Jane Doe, who targeted Plaintiffs and intentionally chilled their religious speech and expression by requiring Plaintiffs to remove or cover their attire because of their pro-life messages.

6. This case seeks to protect and vindicate Plaintiffs’ fundamental and statutory rights under federal law, the First and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”).

American Center for Law and Justice issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit. A similar suit was filed against the National Air & Space Museum earlier this week. (See prior posting.)

Catholic School Students Sue Air & Space Museum for Barring Pro-Life Apparel

Suit was filed this week in the D.C. federal district court by or on behalf of eleven South Carolina Catholic high school students against the National Air and Space Museum and seven members of its staff alleging that the students were required to remove their hats which carried a pro-life message during their visit to the Museum. The students visited the Museum after participating in the D.C. March for Life event. The complaint (full text) in Kristi L. v. National Air and Space Museum, (D DC, filed 2/6/2023), alleging violations of the 1st and 5th Amendments and RFRA, states in part:

Plaintiffs were subjected to a pattern of ongoing misconduct ... which included targeting, harassment, discrimination and, ultimately, eviction from NASM simply because they wore blue hats with the inscription, “Rosary Pro-Life.”...

Defendants’ restriction on Plaintiffs’ speech is content and viewpoint-based and demonstrates a concerted effort to single out, embarrass, intimidate, exclude, and ultimately silence the message expressed by Plaintiffs in wearing their “Rosary Pro-Life” hat....

The disparate treatment of Plaintiffs based on their viewpoints was a result of a discriminatory purpose on the part of Defendants...

Defendants’ restriction on Plaintiffs’ expressive religious activity as set forth in this Complaint imposes a substantial burden on Plaintiffs’ religious exercise in violation of RFRA....

American Center for Law & Justice issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Federal Reserve Bank Can Be Sued Under Both Title VII and RFRA

In Gardner-Alfred v. Federal Reserve Bank of New York, (SD NY, Jan. 18, 2023), a New York federal district court held that two former employees of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York may bring Title VII as well as RFRA and Free Exercise claims against FRBNY for denying them a religious exemption from the Bank's COVID vaccine mandate. It distinguished cases holding that other governmental entities can be sued only under Title VII. It held however that New York City and New York state anti-discrimination laws are pre-empted by federal law giving NYFRB the power to dismiss employees.

DC Circuit: Marines Must Accommodate Sikh Recruits in Boot Camp

In Singh v. Berger, (DC Cir., Dec. 23, 2022), the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals granted a preliminary injunction to two Sikh Marine Corps recruits who seek an accommodation to wear unshorn hair, beards and certain articles of faith during boot camp training. The court, relying on RFRA, said in part:

So the Plaintiffs’ likelihood of success comes down to whether the Marine Corps has demonstrated a compelling interest accomplished by the least restrictive means in refusing to accommodate their faith for the thirteen weeks of boot camp. The Marine Corps has failed to meet its burden on both fronts....

[T]he Marine Corps argues that excepting the Plaintiffs from the repeated ritual of shaving their faces and heads alongside fellow recruits, and permitting them to wear a head covering, will impede its compelling interest in forging unit cohesion and a uniform mindset during boot camp....

... Colonel Jeppe’s claimed compelling need for inflexible grooming uniformity does not stand up against the “system of exceptions” to boot camp grooming rules that the Corps has already created and that seriously “undermine[]” the Corps’ contention that it “can brook no departures” for Plaintiffs....

To sum up, Plaintiffs have demonstrated not just a likely, but an overwhelming, prospect of success on the merits of their RFRA claim. At a general level, the Government has certainly articulated a compelling national security interest in training Marine Corps recruits to strip away their individuality and adopt a team-oriented mindset committed to the military mission and defense of the Nation. But RFRA requires more than pointing to interests at such a broad level.... The Marine Corps has to show that its substantial burdening of these Plaintiffs’ religion furthers that compelling interest by the least restrictive means. That is where the Marine Corps has come up very short.... 

Becket issued a press release announcing the decision.

Army Enjoined from Disciplining Plaintiffs Who Refuse COVID Vaccine on Religious Grounds

A Texas federal district court this week issued a preliminary injunction preventing the military from taking disciplinary action against ten members of the Army who object on religious grounds to complying with the Army's COVID vaccine mandate.  However, the injunction does not prevent the military from taking their vaccination status into account in making deployment, assignment and other operational decisions.  In the case, Schelske v. Austin, (ND TX, Dec. 21, 2022), the court said in part:

The Army has a valid interest in vaccinating its soldiers, and it has made the COVID-19 vaccine mandatory. But its soldiers have a right to religious freedom, which in this case includes a sincere religious objection to the COVID-19 vaccine. Which side must yield? The answer lies in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which applies to the military: The Army must accommodate religious freedom unless it can prove that the vaccine mandate furthers a compelling interest in the least restrictive means. The Army attempts to meet that burden by pointing to the need for military readiness and the health of its force. But ... these generalized interests are insufficient. Rather, the Army must justify denying these particular plaintiffs’ religious exemptions under current conditions. Here, with 97% of active forces vaccinated and operating successfully in a post-pandemic world, the Army falls short of its burden....

The parties’ dispute centers on whether the Army can prove that application of the vaccine mandate to these plaintiffs furthers a compelling government interest through the least restrictive means possible. At every turn, however, the evidence before the Court weighs against the Army and in favor of the plaintiffs....

Finally, the Court recognizes that much of this litigation may soon be moot. Congress recently passed the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023.... If signed by the President into law, the NDAA would require the Secretary of Defense to “rescind the mandate that members of the Armed Forces be vaccinated against COVID-19” within 30 days of enactment.... Despite these developments, the Army has refused to commit to halting separation proceedings against the plaintiffs by way of any agreement that this Court can enforce.

8th Circuit Affirms RFRA Rights of Catholic Health Care Organizations to Refuse Gender Transition Services

In Religious Sisters of Mercy v. Becerra, (8th Cir., Dec. 9, 2022), the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court decision that enjoined the federal government from requiring various Catholic health care organizations to perform or provide insurance coverage for gender transition procedures. The district court concluded that plaintiffs' rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act were violated by the requirements imposed by the government's interpretation of the Affordable Care Act and Title VII.  On appeal, the government raised only jurisdictional challenges-- standing, ripeness and lack of irreparable harm.  The 8th Circuit rejected the government's challenges, except as to standing of one organizational plaintiff.

Indiana Court Enjoins Abortion Restrictions as Violating State's RFRA

In Anonymous Plaintiff 1 v. Individual Members of the Medical Licensing Board of Indiana, (IN Super. Ct., Dec. 2, 2022), an Indiana state trial court preliminarily enjoined the state from enforcing Indiana's law restricting abortions against plaintiffs whose religious beliefs permit or require abortions in situations not allowed under Indiana law.  Plaintiffs were Jewish and Muslim, and one plaintiff of no specific denomination. The court, invoking Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act, said in part:

26. This Court finds that the Plaintiffs practices regarding abortion are religious in nature: they have established that, under circumstances that would be prohibited by S.E.A. 1, their religious beliefs would compel them to have abortions....

43. The undisputed evidence establishes that the Plaintiffs do not share the State’s belief that life begins at fertilization or that abortion constitutes the intentional taking of a human life. To the contrary, they have different religious beliefs about when life begins, and they believe that under certain circumstances not permitted by S.E.A. 1, they would be required to receive abortions. Under the law, the Court finds these are sincere religious beliefs.

44. The State has not asserted a compelling interest in refusing to provide an exception to the Plaintiffs if the law were otherwise enforceable. Indiana has no interest in violating the sincere religious beliefs and exercise of the Plaintiffs....

49. The Plaintiffs argue that S.E.A. 1 is not narrowly tailored and is underinclusive, in that it provides exceptions for some abortions—though not religious exceptions—in circumstances that directly contravene the State’s purported interest. 

50. The State argues that abortion, regardless of gestational age of the zygote, embryo, or fetus, is the killing of an innocent human being, and its interest is in preventing that killing....

51. However, the statute explicitly allows abortions in circumstances that the State acknowledges constitute the “killing” of an “innocent human being”: for example, where the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest and where the fetus is viable but will not live beyond three months after birth.

A different state trial court has previously enjoined enforcement of the Act on state constitutional grounds. (See prior posting.)

Indianapolis Star reports on the decision. [Thanks to Daniel Conkle via Religionlaw for the lead.]

6th Circuit Affirms Preliminary Injunction Protecting Air Force Personnel Who Have Religious Objections to COVID Vaccine

 In Doster v. Kendall, (6th Cir., Nov. 29, 2022), the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court's grant of a class-wide preliminary injunction barring the Air Force from disciplining Air Force personnel who have sought religious exemptions from the military's COVID vaccine mandate. The injunction however did not interfere with the Air Force’s operational decisions over the Plaintiffs’ duties. The 6th Circuit concluded that plaintiffs' RFRA claim was likely to succeed on the merits, saying in part:

Some 10,000 members with a wide array of duties have requested religious exemptions from this mandate. The Air Force has granted only about 135 of these requests.... Yet it has granted thousands of other exemptions for medical reasons (such as a pregnancy or allergy) or administrative reasons (such as a looming retirement)....

Under RFRA, the Air Force wrongly relied on its “broadly formulated” reasons for the vaccine mandate to deny specific exemptions to the Plaintiffs, especially since it has granted secular exemptions to their colleagues.... The Air Force’s treatment of their exemption requests also reveals common questions for the class: Does the Air Force have a uniform policy of relying on its generalized interests in the vaccine mandate to deny religious exemptions regardless of a service member’s individual circumstances? And does it have a discriminatory policy of broadly denying religious exemptions but broadly granting secular ones? A district court can answer these questions in a “yes” or “no” fashion for the entire class.....

In the abstract, the Air Force may well have a compelling interest in requiring its 501,000 members to get vaccinated. It has also largely achieved this general interest, as evidenced by its ability to vaccinate over 97% of its force.... Under RFRA, however, the Air Force must show that it has a compelling interest in refusing a “specific” exemption to, say, Lieutenant Doster or Airman Colantonio.... To succeed ..., the Air Force must identify the duties of each Plaintiff and offer evidence as to why it has a compelling interest in forcing someone with those duties to take the vaccine or face a sanction....

If the Air Force can permanently retain those who cannot deploy because of their religious objections to a war, it must explain why it cannot permanently retain those who cannot deploy because of their religious objections to a vaccine.

(See prior related posting.) Courthouse News Service reports on the decision.

Disciplinary Warning to Justice of the Peace Who Would Not Perform Same-Sex Weddings Is Upheld

In Hensley v. State Commission on Judicial Conduct, (TX App., Nov. 3, 2022), a Texas state appellate court affirmed the dismissal of a suit challenging a public warning issued by the Commission on Judicial Conduct that concluded plaintiff, a justice of the peace, has cast doubt on her ability to act impartially toward LGBTQ litigants. Plaintiff refused to perform same-sex weddings, while continuing to perform weddings for heterosexual couples. Instead of appealing the Commission's public warning to a special court of review, as provided by Texas statutes, plaintiff filed suit in state trial court arguing that the Commission had violated her rights under the Texas Religious Freedom Act and that her conduct had not violated the Code of Judicial Conduct.  She sought damages and additional declaratory relief. The appeals court said in part:

The trial court correctly dismissed this impermissible collateral attack on the Commission’s order....

Because the evidence establishes that the Commission has in fact not threatened further disciplinary action against Hensley, she has failed to carry her burden of demonstrating that the TRFRA waives the Commission’s immunity for her claim that threats of further discipline by the Commission have burdened her free exercise of religion.

Justice Goodwin filed a concurring opinion saying in part:

I would decide Hensley’s TRFRA claims on the ground that she did not comply with its notice provisions.... I do not agree with the Court’s analysis..., particularly the Court making an implicit finding by the Commission that its investigation and disciplinary action did not substantially violate Hensley’s free exercise of religion and that this implied finding foreclosed any future claims.

KWTX News reports on the decision. 

Religious Questioning Of Muslim Travelers By Border Officers Upheld

In Kariye v. Mayorkas, (CD CA, Oct. 12, 2022), three Muslim plaintiffs sued the Department of Homeland Security alleging that border officers routinely and intentionally single out Muslim-American travelers to demand they answer religious questions. The court, in a 71-page opinion in its official format, first dismissed plaintiffs' Establishment Clause challenge. Applying the Supreme Court's test articulated in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, the court said in part:

The court finds substantial legal authority supporting the government's historically broad authority to implement security measures at the border.... Additionally, the court finds substantial authority holding that maintaining border security is a compelling government interest.

The court rejected plaintiffs' free exercise claim, finding that plaintiffs had not sufficiently alleged a substantial burden on their religious exercise. It additionally concluded that even if there was a substantial burden, officers' questioning was narrowly tailored to advance a compelling governmental interest in protecting borders and preventing potential terrorism.

The court also rejected freedom of association, retaliation, equal protection and RFRA challenges to practices of border officers.

Suit Challenges Kentucky Abortion Bans As Violating Jewish Religious Beliefs

Suit was filed last Thursday in a Kentucky state trial court by three Jewish women who contend that Kentucky's strict abortion bans violate their religious freedom rights. The complaint (full text) in Sobel v. Cameron, (KY Cir. Ct., filed 10/6/2022), alleges that Kentucky law might be read to make it a capital offense to discard excess embryos created in the process of in vitro fertilization. The complaint alleges in part:

35. Under Jewish law, a fetus does not become a human being or child until birth. Under no circumstances has Jewish law defined a human being or child as the moment that a human spermatozoon fuses with a human ovum.

36. The question of when life begins for a human being is a religious and philosophical question without universal beliefs across different religions....

39. Plaintiff’s religious beliefs demand that they have more children through IVF, yet the law forces Plaintiffs to spend exorbitant fees to keep their embryos frozen indefinitely or face potential felony charges. This dilemma forces Plaintiffs to abandon their sincere religious beliefs of having more children by limiting access to IVF and substantially burdens their right to freely exercise these sincerely held religious belief....

51. Kentucky's contemporary Abortion Law is focused on preservation of ova and blastocysts on the basis of a religious understanding of fetal personhood.....

The complaint alleges that Kentucky abortion laws are void for vagueness and unintelligibility; violate the Kentucky Religious Freedom Restoration Act; and violate the Kentucky Constitution by giving preference to sectarian Christianity and diminishing Plaintiffs' privileges, rights, and capacities on account of their Jewish faith and beliefs. Los Angeles Times reports on the lawsuit.

Indiana Abortion Restrictions Challenged Under State RFRA

A class action lawsuit was filed yesterday in an Indiana state trial court court on behalf of all persons in the state whose religious beliefs direct them to obtain abortions in situations prohibited by the state's recently enacted restrictive abortion ban. The suit was filed by five anonymous plaintiffs and an organization, Hoosier Jews For Choice.  The complaint (full text) in Anonymous Plaintiffs 1-5 v. Individual Members of the Medical Licensing Board of Indiana, (IN Super. Ct., filed 9/8/2022), contends that the law violates Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act. ACLU issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

ACA Mandate To Cover PrEP Drugs Violates RFRA

In Braidwood Management Inc. v. Becerra, (ND TX, Sept. 7, 2022), a Texas federal district court held that the ACA mandate for health insurance coverage of PrEP drugs violates the rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of a for-profit corporation whose owner believes that providing such coverage for his employees would make him complicit in their homosexual conduct and sexual activity outside of marriage. The court said in part:

Defendants dispute Hotze’s beliefs. They argue that Hotze’s claim that PrEP drugs facilitate various kinds of behavior is an empirical one that requires factual support.... But Defendants inappropriately contest the correctness of Hotze’s beliefs, when courts may test only the sincerity of those beliefs...

Defendants claim a compelling interest in reducing the spread of HIV, a potentially fatal infectious disease.... 

But Defendants frame the interest too broadly. “RFRA requires the Government to demonstrate that the compelling interest test is satisfied through application of the challenged law ‘to the person’—the particular claimant whose sincere exercise of religion is being substantially burdened.” ...

... Defendants provide no evidence of the scope of religious exemptions, the effect such exemptions would have on the insurance market or PrEP coverage, the prevalence of HIV in those communities, or any other evidence relevant “to the marginal interest” in enforcing the PrEP mandate in these cases...

Even if Defendants had satisfied the compelling-interest prong, they have not shown that the PrEP mandate is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest...

Much of the court's 42-page opinion relates to other issues. Bloomberg reports on the decision. [Thanks to James Phillips for the lead.]

RFRA Defense Cannot Be Decided On Pre-Trial Motion

In United States v. Skeet, (D NM, Aug. 26, 2022), a New Mexico federal district court held that defendant, a member of the Navajo nation, must assert as a defense at trial rather than in a pre-trial motion, the contention that the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Gold Eagle Protection Act violate his rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The court said in part:

[B]ecause Mr. Skeet’s RFRA defense implicates primarily factual rather than legal issues, the Court finds that this defense is “territory reserved to the jury as the ultimate finder of fact in our criminal justice system.” ... Additionally, because the RFRA defense goes to the ultimate issue of Mr. Skeet’s guilt, it would require a trial on the merits of the case—a prospect that is proscribed by Rule 12(b)(1) and that disserves judicial economy.... Nevertheless, Mr. Skeet is welcome to assert a RFRA defense at trial.

5th Circuit Approves Injunction Shielding Religious Organizations From Mandate On Transgender Medical Care

In Franciscan Alliance, Inc. v. Becerra, (5th Cir., Aug. 26, 2022), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, invoking RFRA, upheld a Texas federal district court's issuance of a permanent injunction barring the government from interpreting or enforcing provisions of the Affordable Care Act to require religious organizations, in violation of their religious beliefs, to perform or provide insurance coverage for gender-reassignment surgeries or abortions. At issue is the interpretation of the ACA's ban on discrimination on the basis of sex. The court however held that an alternative claim based on the Administrative Procedure Act was moot. Becket issued a press release announcing the decision.

Sikh Marine Recruits Lose Bid For Turbans and Unshorn Hair During Recruit Training

In Toor v. Berger, (D DC, Aug. 24, 2022), the D.C. federal district court refused to grant a preliminary injunction to three Sikh Marine recruits who wanted to prevent enforcement of the Marine's uniform and grooming policies during recruit training while their case continues to be litigated. Sikh religious beliefs require plaintiffs to maintain an unshorn beard and hair, wear a turban and wear other religious items. Plaintiffs contend that denying accommodation of their religious practices violates RFRA, the Free Exercise Clause and the Equal Protection Clause. The court held that even if plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable injury, the balance of equities and the overall public interest favor the military at this preliminary stage of proceedings. The court said in part:

The Marines have thus "credibly alleged" that "training in [the] manner" that would be required by the requested injunction will "pose a serious threat to national security" by disrupting defendant's well established method of transforming recruits through the discipline of uniformity.

No Church Autonomy Defense To Catholic Organization's Sexual Orientation Discrimination

In Doe v. Catholic Relief Services, (D MD, Aug. 3, 2022), a Maryland federal district court granted summary judgment in favor of plaintiff who was denied spousal health insurance coverage for his same-sex husband. Rejecting a church-autonomy defense, the court said in part:

CRS insists that any judicial inquiry into this case inevitably requires an inquiry into matters of Catholic faith and doctrine. This is not so; this case concerns a social service organization's employment benefit decisions regarding a data analyst and does not involve CRS's spiritual or ministerial functions.

The court held that Catholic Relief Services violated Title VII, and that the exemption in Title VII for religious organizations only applies to discrimination by them on the basis of religion. It also held that RFRA does not provide a defense because it applies only to claims against the government. The court also found no First Amendment violation, saying in part:

Our Constitution's solicitousness of religious exercise is not carte blanche for any religious institution wishing to place itself beyond the reach of any neutral and generally applicable law. This court need not engage in a strict scrutiny analysis that would apply if a truly comparable secular institution were being treated favorably compared to CRS.

The court went on to find violations of the federal and state Equal Pay Acts, and ordered certification to the state court of a question of coverage by Maryland's Fair Employment Practices Act.

Wire Fraud Indictment Did Not Violate RFRA

In United States v. Stevens, (SD FL, July 12, 2022), a Florida federal district court adopted the magistrate's lengthy opinion of (May 2, 2022) and refused to dismiss a money laundering and wire fraud indictment against a religious psychic. The fraud victim, Ilena Torruella, believed that she was cursed because she possessed millions of dollars of "dirty" family money. Defendant offered to break the curse by "cleansing" the money and showing God that the victim was not attached to it. According to the court:

The key point Defendant relies upon to seek dismissal of this indictment is that Stevens never expressly promised to return Torruella’s money and Torruella never directly asked whether it would be returned before turning over her funds to Stevens.... Without an express agreement or promise to return the money, Stevens concludes that Torruella received exactly what she bargained for. The money was cleansed when Torruella gave it away.

Defendant contends that the indictment infringes her free exercise rights under RFRA and the 1st Amendment. However the magistrate's opinion rejects that contention, saying in part:

[Stevens] does not allege that any religious belief or practice of hers requires her to convert other people’s money for her benefit on false pretenses.... She instead argues that in general terms her Roma beliefs are burdened by the prosecution of this case based on her inability to practice her spiritual healing practices without government intervention. But that is too attenuated under RFRA because there are plenty of alternatives for Stevens to practice her religion....

The court concluded:

The jury must, of course, determine that her conduct was carried out with fraudulent intent. Defendant may present a defense that she was simply pursuing her religious practices, which may be antithetical with criminal intent. If the jury finds her belief to be sincere, she may be acquitted. But that is a matter for trial, not for a motion to dismiss.

Volokh Conspiracy has additional excerpts from the decision.

Damage Claim For Denying Lincoln Memorial Religious Demonstration Permit Dismissed

In Ferguson v. Owen, (D DC, July 8, 2022), a D.C. federal district court dismissed, with leave to amend, a suit for damages against the head of the National Park Service Division of Permits Management for refusing plaintiff a permit for a 4-month long demonstration at the Lincoln Memorial.  He was offered a permit to demonstrate at the Korean War Veterans Memorial site. Plaintiff, a street musician, wanted to convey a religious/ political message.  The court rejected plaintiff's RFRA claim, finding that the denial had not imposed a substantial burden on his religious exercise, saying in part:

Must an individual have a central religious belief that requires demonstrating at the Lincoln Memorial in order for the denial of permit applications to demonstrate at the Lincoln Memorial—accompanied by the approval of permit applications to demonstrate at nearby locations—to constitute a substantial burden under RFRA? The answer to this question is yes.

The court also rejected plaintiff's 1st Amendment claim, refusing to extend implied Bivens causes of action to this type of claim.