Does the "appropriate relief ' of the Religious
Freedom Restoration Act allow for damages liability,
or nominal damages where other damages cannot be
quantified, against the United States where, by a
breach of duty in their official capacity, a government
officer or employee injures the Petitioners ' in their
natural and fundamental rights of the free exercise
of religion and right to travel beyond the borders?
Should the Petitioner 's case have been mooted for
want of standing regarding that question?

Does "appropriate relief ' of the Religious Freedom
Restoration Act provide for damages relief in this
case against the unnamable parties in their
individual capacity whose identities can only be
found by discovery? Should the case have been
dismissed with prejudice against the Petitioners
without discovery where they alleged that they were
injured in their religious, travel and due process
rights by tortfeasors whose breach of duty was the
cause or proximate cause of the Petitioners ' injuries?

Does the 'appropriate relief' of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act allow for damages liability or nominal damages against the United States for breaching official duties that infringe on religious and travel rights?