Whether religious exercise must be required, central, or important to a system of religious belief

QUESTIONS PRESENTED In 2001, a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit — including today’s current U.S. Attorney General — was unaware that the definition of religious exercise in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (“RFRA”) was amended in 2000 by Congress to mean: any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief. 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb-2(4), 2000cc-5(7)(A). As a result, an erroneous precedent was set, which still survives to this day. Incredulously, in the nation’s capital, claimants are still losing RFRA cases for lack of stating compellence and centrality on behalf of religious belief. Petitioner applied for a permit to demonstrate at the seat of government in free exercise of religion. The chief of the permit office admitted to wrongfully denying the activity. The courts below disposed of the case — ruling that location-specific demonstrations at the federal seat of government are not “required,” “central,” or “important” to Christianity. The questions presented are: J. Whether religious exercise must be required, central, or important to a system of religious belief. 2. Whether the availability of alternative means counsels against finding a substantial burden. 3. Whether the substantial burden test is a religious or secular question of law.