that went into effect on june first two thousand and fifteen and fail to explain how this policy is a substantial burden on his religious practice but in nance's pro se opposition to summary judgment  acknowledge the new policy he states that quote modification to the seven zero four fails to establish a penal logical compelling concern which justifies denial by defendants to accommodate the plaintiff sincerely held religious belief he's commanded as a muslim and hearing to grow a full beard on top of that net sites to various verses to explain his beliefs that he's commanded to grow a beard and  prison policy that restricts this practice imposes a substantial burden on these police because a t c imposes disciplinary action upon growing out of beard beyond one inch and because concerns well the government has approved that this is the least restrictive means and lance has offered to provide for a foot of occasion photo identification once he grows out we say ok ok this is a legitimate concern but less you know what they're doing but we're having the beer this too restrictive so we're going to turn to our lawyer your lawyer now and say well tell us what can we my answer was that the inquiry is not whether the policy in general further is a compelling governmental interest the court has to look at the context of the religious claim and and look to the marginal interest in enforcing the challenge government action like security and safety there's no it there's just no other way and here it defined it's failed to meet that burden and because the district court erred when it required nanse show how these beliefs are critical and misapplication of the government's policy a t c is policy contradicts itself the central issue here is whether nance can purchase oils a t c already allows oils into the prison so long as they're donated nance would simply like to be able to purchase oils because he can guarantee that there will mean that they come from a muslim vendor but because eighty cs policy restricts him from doing so he's unable to get scented oils in fact there's nothing on the record to show that a b c has ever had oils donated to the prison so their policy effectively renders him unable to ever get scented or oils couldn't he be they don't are donate the oils to himself and his coreligionists at the prison he would only be able to do that if  was first able to purchase oils which is the exact policy that the restriction has this court is actually held that a substantial burden can be found where alternatives require a substantial stand so i t my question i didn't have an if i said what happens today if you go this if you orders this today it goes into the chaplain's office with other religious items that are stored and on fridays during group prayers and during the two groups holidays he would take the oils from chaplain the entire process is watched the chaplain watches the entire process it's returned he engages in prayer so what's the beef if you can do on that the that's the problem that the policy contradicts itself they will not allow him to i just have to see what happens today if you or others have been everything you've told me sounds like it's fine so so what you complain about he's not able to order them well i'm sorry i just asked you what happens question so so he wasn't today he would not receive them what would happen when they would come to the prison he would not even be able to place the order they have pre approved list of items that can be ordered i see so they're allows again the only issue here is how he can access the oils a t c allows scented oils into the prison but they have to be donated he would like to purchase the oils because he can guarantee that their whole law and a t c will not allow him to do so and the substantial delay and uncertainty that he receives from this is a substantial burden for the stated reasons and because he filed this claim as opposed to a litigant and had his claim should have been broadly construed by the district court what happens then and here's the problem there's nothing in the record that crosses that the argument that mr nance is taking on appeal now to this court is that there is no evidence that donated all else would be available so on and so forth outside of the record i would i would disagree with that is nothing in the record about it and the issue there is that the burden on this argument rests with mr nance not with the government the government but i think you know he doesn't have to prove that he so he has certainly put in the issue the question of whether he should be entitled to have a steady supply of these things or reliable supply of these things we're buying that is on the table right and that's not in any way the chaplain as if they were donated and making himself the donor for you know essentially self donated what's the conceivable legitimate reason that the person hassle that well your honor the hypothetical that you just partly top void stupid ideas we might have so we have counsel helping us out so when you answer my question and then explain to me why it's simple you haven't no it's certainly not stupid you are because it's my my question is is it ok are you going to listen the stand and say what is a legitimate reason for prohibiting plaintiffs from ordering these things reason to prohibit that ok and is it in fact prohibited i don't believe well opposing counsel has told me it's not on the list of approved things so so is she mistaken about and that if he is not available able to do that you are binding the warden to to alarm do that what is in the record i'm asking a question i'm asking a question so if it's a fact not on the list you are now binding the warden by your statement today that he can order it the only one for me is no no no no no no just answer my question are you pine in the woods now ok so then we have to assume that it's not  not to allow him to buy them and donate them to be sent to the war to the chaplain for use in group certainly right and you still can see that right there was  going back to what i think is the primary issue is there must be proof of a tribal issue at least that there is a substantial burden on his religious exercise and that has never you know no justification for this so how substantial does a burden have to me i mean he has said this burdens and there's no doubt this is genuine legitimate sincere religious belief and you have stood there twice and said there's no rational justification for it no one should be a man and confess error and move on i mean you know this is this is this is this is i mean you've got no place left to go know you have yes you said there's nothing there isn't the better course for you to just confess error on this point and move on to something else your honor i'm having trouble we did not take a position but tell the warden him her what would go on to a man wouldn't at the present time i believe so there we go call the warden tell him to stop this i would do say i never go once he has a legitimate command why doesn't it follow that being required not to follow is a command becomes a substantial burden i mean if this is a silly held believe that this is a legitimate command  that there must be there is a difference between a mere inconvenience and a substantial part and what we have here is not a flat then i want to be here we have a limitation on how far he can grow his beard and we're just saying that he must demonstrate something more than a mere inconvenience what can you do other say look i sincerely believe i interpret these passages in the koran to say i've got to be  described that he cut it once only because his father had died in the one nine hundred eighty s that one time in this is this is a matter of spiritual importance to him that's all the prisoner has to do is illustrate that this matters to me and it affects my religious exercise that is the point that we are making we are we are not stating that he has to cite you know passages and texts several did he not say that and in addition did he not also cite religious passages well he barred and disciplined if he doesn't obey prison rules if he grows the beard longer than an inch either they'll forcibly shave it or they'll discipline him presumably as they would for any other violation of prison regulations of your own the rule that course that's what it says well you may disagree with that but that's what the statute says as well as case law under it and i guess our reading is simply the emphasis on the phrase substantial for my though is if we were to disagree with you and reverse on the question of sincerity of belief centrally a belief and substantial burden the next step is government substantial government interest and no reasonable no less restrictive alternative you didn't brief that you said if we reverse we should just send it back to the lower court why should we not rule on that there is some record that we have before us in the fact that it's this essentially a question of law we are conceding that there are five questions and there are fact questions what we would put into the record before the district court for four findings of fact have to do with altering appearances and preventing concealment of contraband hygiene issues grooming issues those are sort of things that we for earlier your honor you asked about how the government kid there whether how we could solve this problem by requiring beards and in hopes that supreme court held that the government the department could solve this problem by requiring that all inmates be photographed without beards when first and made it to the facility and if necessary only periodic lee after vote yes and in holds the prisoner in that case compromise and offered a compromise to allow his spirit to be a half inch but that was merely a floor not a ceiling the it could apply to four periods there's at least a tribal issue that this is not the least restrictive means in furthering a compelling interest and so again we ask that the government that this court reverse