A statute burdens the free exercise of religion if it puts substantial pressure on an adherent to modify his behavior and to violate his beliefs, including when, if enforced, it results in the choice to the individual of either abandoning his religious principle or facing criminal prosecution.

Since Boerne, "[e] very appellate court that has squarely addressed the question has held that the RFRA governs the activities of federal officers and agencies."

Every single other Circuit court that has squarely addressed the question, however, has held that Boerne did not invalidate RFRA in its entirety, and that the statute remains valid as applied to the federal government.

Under this standard the Ninth Circuit would affirm a decision interpreting a Guam statute " `where... the Guam Supreme Court appears to have construed [the] statute reasonably and fairly.'"Id

Therefore, to state a claim under RLUIPA, a plaintiff must allege facts to support that government action has substantially burdened the exercise of the plaintiff's religion without a compelling government interest and by the least restrictive means.

Because leopards are not native to the United States, Defendant must import and transport a leopard skin into the United States in order to possess it for religious purposes.

Congress derives its ability to protect the free exercise of religion from its plenary authority found in Article I of the Constitution; it can carve out a religious exemption from otherwise neutral, generally applicable laws based on its power to enact the underlying statute in the first place

"RFRA, Courts of Appeals have held, remains operative as to the Federal Government and federal territories and possessions.

The court focused on Lafley's First Amendment claim but also held that, even if Lafley had raised a RFRA claim—and, further, even if he qualified for the Act's protections because the Condition would substantially burden his sincere religious belief— "the Act would not provide the relief he seeks... because [the Condition] serves `a compelling government interest in the …

RFRA "provides a level of protection to religious exercise beyond that which the First Amendment requires