In United States v. Grady, (11th Cir., Nov. 22, 2021), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the convictions of three members of the Plowshares movement, a Catholic protest organization opposed to nuclear weapons. Defendants were convicted for their illegal entry onto a Naval submarine base that was followed by a religious "symbolic disarmament" protest. The court rejected defendants' argument that their indictments should have been dismissed under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, saying in part:
In this case, the parties agree that the defendants were exercising sincerely held religious beliefs, the government substantially burdened the defendants’ religious exercise, and the government has a compelling interest. Accordingly, the fourth prong in the RFRA analysis is the only prong in dispute in this appeal—whether the government met its burden of demonstrating that criminal prosecution of the defendants was the least-restrictive means of furthering its significant compelling interests in the safety and security of the naval base, naval base personnel, and naval base assets....
[I]n order to be a viable least-restrictive means for purposes of RFRA, the proposed alternative needed to accommodate both the religious exercise practiced in this case— unauthorized entry onto the naval base and destructive actions, including spray painting monuments, doors, and sidewalks, pouring human blood on doors and other areas, hammering on a static missile display, hanging banners and crime scene tape, as well as removing and partially destroying signage and monuments around the naval base—and simultaneously achieve the government’s compelling interests in the safety and security of the naval base, naval base assets, personnel, and critical operations....
[N]othing in RFRA supports destructive, national-security-compromising conduct as a means of religious exercise.
