Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-00-05070/USCOURTS-caDC-00-05070-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Filed October 2, 2001

No. 00-5070

Augustine David Henderson,

Appellant

v.

Roger A. Kennedy, et al.,

Appellees

Consolidated with

No. 00-5071

On Appellants' Petition for Rehearing

Before: Henderson, Randolph, and Garland, Circuit

Judges.

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge Randolph.

Randolph, Circuit Judge: The petition for rehearing directs us to amendments of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), 42 U.S.C. s 2000bb et seq., enacted a year

ago, but not mentioned by either side when the case was last

USCA Case #00-5070 Document #628594 Filed: 10/02/2001 Page 1 of 3
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

before us. The petition argues that the amendments render

erroneous our decision sustaining, as against a claim under

RFRA, the National Park Service's regulation prohibiting the

sale of t-shirts on the National Mall.

RFRA had defined "exercise of religion" as "the exercise of

religion under the First Amendment to the Constitution." 42

U.S.C. s 2000bb-2(4) (1999). The Religious Land Use and

Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), Pub. L. No.

106-274, ss 7-8, 114 Stat. 803, 806 (2000), altered the definition to mean "any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief." 42

U.S.C. s 2000cc-5(7)(A), incorporated by 42 U.S.C.

s 2000bb-2(4).

The amendments remove the doubt expressed in our opinion, see Henderson v. Kennedy, 253 F.3d 12, 16 (D.C. Cir.

2001), that the portion of RFRA remaining after City of

Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997)--the portion, that is,

applicable to the federal government (and not enacted pursuant to s 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment)--survived the

Supreme Court's decision striking down the statute as applied

to the States.

The amendments did not alter RFRA's basic prohibition

that the "[g]overnment shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion." 42 U.S.C. s 2000bb-1(a). See

also Henderson, 253 F.3d at 15; Kikumura v. Hurley, 242

F.3d 950, 960 (10th Cir. 2001); Murphy v. Zoning Comm'n of

the Town of New Milford, 148 F. Supp. 2d 173, 188 (D. Conn.

2001). Our opinion assumed that plaintiffs Henderson and

Phillips wanted to sell t-shirts on the Mall because of their

religious beliefs. Our focus was on whether the Park Service

regulation imposed a "substantial burden" on their exercise of

religion. See Henderson, 253 F.3d at 16-17. In reaching our

judgment we examined the importance of selling t-shirts on

the Mall to the plaintiffs. Our conclusion was this: "Because

the Park Service's ban on sales on the Mall is at most a

restriction on one of a multitude of means [by which petitioners may engage in their vocation to spread the gospel], it is

not a substantial burden on their vocation. Plaintiffs can still

USCA Case #00-5070 Document #628594 Filed: 10/02/2001 Page 2 of 3
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

distribute t-shirts for free on the Mall, or sell them on streets

surrounding the Mall." Id. at 17. That conclusion is unaffected by the amendments of RFRA. Although the amendments extended the protections of RFRA to "any exercise of

religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system

of religious belief," 42 U.S.C. s 2000cc-5(7)(A), incorporated

by 42 U.S.C. s 2000bb-2(4), the amendments did not alter the

propriety of inquiring into the importance of a religious

practice when assessing whether a substantial burden exists.

The petition for rehearing is therefore denied.

So 

ordered.

USCA Case #00-5070 Document #628594 Filed: 10/02/2001 Page 3 of 3