### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 10358

J O S E M E R C E D , P r e s id e n t T e m p lo Y o r u b a O m o O r is h a T e x a s , In c . , P l a i n ti ff-A p p ell a n t v. K U RT KASSO N ; M I K E C O LLI N S; BO B FR EE M AN ; CI TYO F EU LE SS , D efen da n t s- A pp el l ees.
C ons w /08- 10506

J O S E M E R C E D , P r e s id e n t T e m p lo Y o r u b a O m o O r is h a T e x a s , In c ., P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee v. CI TYO F EU LE SS, D efen d a n t- A p p ell a n t.

Appe al s f

r o m t he U ni t e d St at e s D i s t r i c tCour tf o rt he N ort h ern D i st ri ctof

T exas
B ef ore B A R K S D A L E , D E N N IS, an d E L R O D , C i rcui tJu dg es . JE N N IFE R W
. E L R O D , C i rcui tJu dg e: Th e Texas R el i gi ous Fre edo m an d R es t or at i on A c t(TR FR A) , Tex. C i v. P rac. & R em . C ode c h
. 110 , preven t s t h e st ate and l ocalT exas govern m en t s f rom s ubs t ant i al l y bur de ni n g a pers o n’ s f r e e e xe r c i s e o f

r e l i gi o n unl e s s t he United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Jul y 31, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 10358

He is also the preside nt of Templo Yorub a Omo Orisha Texas, Inc. , a Sa nt er ia 1 reli gious organi zation
. This sectio n summariz es th e te stimonyof Merced’ s expert, who de scribe d th e te nets 2 of faith and the practices of th e Santeria r eli gion. The district court foun d th e expert’s te stim onycre dib le , an d th e citya gre ed
. 2 gov er nm entc an dem ons t r at e t hat doi ng s o f urt her s a c om pel l i ng gov er nm ent al i n teres t i n the l ea st restrictive m a n n er. In th i s ca se, w e m u st de ci d e if the ci ty
o f Eul e s s , Te xa s , m aypr ac t i c al l y f o r bi d t he ke e pi ng— e v e n f o rb r i e f p e r i o ds

— and slau gh ter of f

ou r-l eg ge d an i m a l s w ith i n i ts bo rd ers, a ba n tha t pre ve n ts p r a c tit io n e r s o f th e S a n te r ia fa ith fr o m p e r fo r m in gc e r e m o n ie s e s s e n tia l t o th e ir
r e l i gi o n. W e ho l d t hat , und e rTRF RA , t he Eul e s s ord i n anc e s a ti s s ue subs t ant i al l y bur den pl ai nt i f f ’ s f r ee ex er c i se of

r el i gi on w i t houtadvanci ng a com pel l i n g govern m en t ali n t erestusi n g t h e l east rest ri ct i ve m ean s. Jos é M er c ed i s a Sant er i a O b aO ria te , or p ri est, an d i s a n a tive of P u erto Ri c o w ho m o ve d t o Eul e s s i n 1 99 0. I n 200 6, t he c i t y i nf o r m e d M e r c e d t hathe 1
c o ul d no tl e ga l l y pe r f o r m c e r t ai n a ni m als ac r i f i c e s e s s e nt i alt o Sa nt e r i a r e l i gi o us p ra cti ce, th ou gh h e h a d d on e so for th e p rev i ou s sixteen y ea rs w i th ou t i n ci d en t. H e s u e d th e ci t y, seeki n g a perm an en ti nj u n ct i on t h at prohi bi t ed E u l ess f rom en f orci n g i t s or di n an ces t h at bu rden ed hi s rel i gi ou s practi ce. T h e di st ri ctcourt
en t ered j u dg em en tf

or t h e ci t y f

ol l ow i n g a ben ch tr i al , bu tden i ed i t s r equ estf or att orney fees
. W e revers e t h e f orm er and af

f i rm t h e l att er. I . F A CT UA L A ND P ROC E DUR A L B A CK GRO UND A
. T h e Sa n t eri a R el igi on 2 M ode r n- day Sant er i a o r i gi nat ed i n C uba and i s a f usi on o f w es t er n Af

r i c an trib a l re l i gi on an d som e el em en t s of R om an C athol i ci sm . I t s pract i ce c en t ers ar o und s pi r i t s c al l e d o r i s has , w h i ch are di vi n e rep re se n ta t i ves of O l odu m are, t h e sup rem e dei t y. San t eri a ri t u al s s eek to engag e t h ese o r i s has , h o n o rt h e m, ande nc o ur ag e t he i r i nvo l ve m e nt i n t he m at e r i al w o r l d. D o i ng s o r e qui r e s t heN o. 08- 10358

Merce d testified that T emplo Yorub a Omo Orisha hope s eventu ally to b uil d a temple, 3 where certain cere monie s m aytake place if and as th e orishas allow, but has no concrete plan s to doso curre ntly . Merced does not know where th e te mple will be located. 3 u se of l i fe energy, or as hé , t he hi ghes tc onc ent r at i on of w hi c h i s f

ound i n ani m al b l oo d
. T h u s m a n y S a n te r ia r i tu a l s i n vo l ve the sac ri fi ce of l i ve an i m a l s to t ran sfer as hét o t h e o r i s has
. A l t h ou gh an i m alsacri f i ces are u sed t o cel ebrate a
ran ge of even t s, i n cl u di n g bi rt h , m arri age, an d death, t h e m ost c om pl ex cerem on y t ak es pl ace w h en a n ew pri est i s i n i t i ated. T h i s c erem on y, at w h i ch
a n ew shri n e is con secr ated, g en eral l y i n vol ves a sacr i f i ce of f i ve t o seven f

ou rl egg ed ani m al s (l am bs orgo at s) , a t urt l e, a duck, t en t o f our t ee n chi c kens, f

i ve to sev en gu i n ea h en s, a n d ten to fou rteen d ov es i n a d d i ti on to ot h e r e le m en ts (s o n g s , d r u m m u s ic , a n d th e o ffe r in g o f o th e r o b je c ts ). T h e a n im a ls a r e u s u a lly cooked an d eaten aft er t h ese s acri f i ces. S an t eri a cerem on i es are h igh l y dep en den ton the w i l lof t h e o r i s hato
w hi c h t he y ar e di r ec t ed. H om e s hri nes , w hi c h ar e s ym bol s orphysi c al
m ani fe s t at i o ns o f

t he o r i s has , a r e i nt e gr alt o Sa nt e ri a, a nd c e r e m o ni e s a nd
sa c r i f i c es usual l y t ake pl ac e i n t he hom e o f t he o f f i c i at i ng pr i es t , al t ho ugh occasi on al l y t h ey m ay take p l ace i n a te m pl e or at t h e hom e shri n e of an ot h er pri est
. Th e o r i s has de t e r m i ne w he r e s ac r i f i c e s a r e t o b e c o nduc t e d, a nd t he pri est s di vi n e t h e o r is h a s ’ w i l lby a com pl ex di vi n ati on process . T h ere are m ore th a n 2 5 0 ,0 0 0 p r a c tit io n e r s o f S a n te r i a i n t h e w o r ld , b u t o n lytw o S a n te r ia t e mp l e s , n e i t h e ro f

wh i c h i s i n t h e c o n t i n e n t a lU n i t e d S t a t e s . T h u s , h o me 3 sacri f i ce i s not on l y t h e norm , bu t a c ru cia l aspectof Sa n t eri a, w i t h ou tw h i ch S a n teria w ou l d eff

ectively cea se to ex i st.N o. 08- 10358

E xce pta s not edinth e text an d b elow , see in fran .9, th ese facts are undisputed. 4 The cityadmitted in thep retri al order that it di d not h ave anyevidence to th e 5 cont rary. 4 B
. Merc ed’

s R el igi ou s Practi ces 4 In 199 0, M erced m oved t o E u l ess a n d beg an t o condu ctri t u alsacr i f i ces. F rom 199 0 to 200 6, M erced perf orm ed the sacri f

i ces w i t h ou tan y in t erf erence f r o m Eul e s s , i ni t i at i ng, o n a ve r ag e , o ne ne w pr i e s ta y e ar . The s ac ri f i ces t ak e pl ace i n a room att ach ed to M erced’ s garage, w h ich is i sol ated f rom t h e res tof t h e hou se. M erced pu rchases t h e an i m al s f rom l ocalm arkets and h a s t h em del i ver ed t o hi s house c l os e t o t he t i m e o f t he c er em ony, usual l y abo ut 15
m i nute s bef

or ehand. There i s no evi denc e t hat he had kept a f our - l egg ed ani m al in h is h o m e b e fo r e s a c r ific in git fo rm o r e t h a n fo u rh o u r s . H e k e e p s th e a n im a ls
c ag e d o ut s i de unt i lhe ki l l s them
. M er c e d s l i t s t he c ar o t i d a r t e r i e s o f t he ani m al s t o k i l l t h e m h u m a n e l y , a n d t h e b l o o d i s c o l l e c t e d a n d o f fe r e d t o t he
o r i s has
. Th e pap er orpl asti c m ats on w h i ch the sacri f i ces are perf

o rm ed are
w r a p p e d a n d th r o w n a w a y . T h e e d ib le p o r tio n s o f th e a n im a ls a r e g e n e r a lly cooked an d eaten ( an d som e port i on s, l i ke th e in t est i n es, are c ooked bu tnot
e a te n ), a n d a n yre m a in s a r e d o u b le -b a g g e d a n d p la c e d e ith e r in th e tr a s h o rin
a d u mp s t e ro wn e d b y a n o t h e rS a n t e r i a p r a c t i t i o n e r . N o o n e h a d e v e rb e c o me si c k duri ng one of

M er c ed’ s c er em oni es, w hi c h gener al l y l as tf ors eve r aldays ( s uc h t hatpa r t i c i pa nt s w o ul d p r e s um ab l y be i n a po s i t i o n t o o bs e r ve i f s o m e o ne d id b e co m e il l). 5 O n Se pt e m be r4 , 2 00 4, M e r c e d w as hol di ng a c e r e m o ny athi s hom e . The pol i ce r eceived an an on ym ou s c al lf rom a neighbor an d w en tt o M erced’ s hou se t o st op the cerem on y. O n ce t h ere, t h e pol i ce c al l ed t w o an i m al controlof f i cers , w h o al l ow ed M erced t o f i n i sh the cerem o n y . I n M ay 20 06, t h e pol i ce r eceived
ano t he r an on ym o us c al ls t at i ng t hats e ve r alg o at s w e r e a bo utt o b e ki l l e d. M erced w as, in fact , h ost i n g a bi rt h da y cel ebrati on forw h i ch n o sacr i f i ces w ereN o. 08- 10358

5 pl anne d. W he n t he o f f i c e r s a r r i ve d t he y t o l d M erced n ott o c o nduc ta ny s a c r ific e s b e c a u s e th e yw e r e lik e lyille g a l in E u le s s . M e r c e d a s k e d h o w h e co u ld obtai n a perm i tf

or t h e sacr i f

i ces an d w as t ol d to con ta ct a su pervi sor. Afew w ee k s l a ter, M erce d an d an oth er p ri est w en t t o a pe rm i ts o ffice attem p ti n g to
o b ta in a p e r m it. T h e yw e r e t o ld b yt w o d iffe r e n t e m p lo y e e s t h a t n o s u c h p e r m it exi st ed becau se anim alsl au gh t er w as st ri ct l y proh ibi t ed. M e rc ed ceased perf orm i n g t h e sacr i f

i ce s i l l egal i n E u l ess ( al t h ou gh he conti n u ed to perf orm S a n te ria ritu a ls th a t a re n o t p ro h ib ited ). M e r c e d ha s de l ay e d i ni t i at i ng an as pi r i ng pr i e s tb e c aus e t he c e r e m o ny m u s t b e p e r fo r m e d in h is h o m e a n d h e c a n n o t p e r fo r m it le g a lly
. M e r c e d is
w i l l i ng t o c o m pl y w i t h a ny di s po s alo rhe al t h s t an da r ds t hatEul e s s m i ght
c r e at e , b utt he c i t y de ni e d t he ava i l ab i l i t y o f a pe r m i to re xc e pt i o n f o rs ac r i f i c i ng f ou r- l egged an i m al s, an d i n t en ds t o p rosec u t e M erced i f he att em pts an y f

u rt h er sacri f i ces of f ou r- l egged an i m al s. O n Decem ber 22, 2 00 6, M e r c e d f i l e d a c o m pl ai nta ga i ns tEul e s s a nd
s e ve r alc i t y o f

f i c i al s a l l e gi ng vi o l at i o ns o f 4 2 U
. S. C. § 1 98 3, t he Rel i gi o us Land U se a n d In sti tu ti on a l i ze d P erso n s A ct (R L U IP A), 42 U
. S
. C
. § 20 0 0 cc, the F i rst, F i f t h , an d F ou rt een t h A m en dm en t s, an d TR F R A
. T h e di st ri ctcourtdi sm i ssed th e s u it a s to th e in d i v i d u a l d e fe n d a n ts b e c a u s e th e yh a d b e e n s u e d in th e ir pe r s o nalc ap ac i t i e s . I n Dec e m be r , 2 007, the di s t r i c tc o ur tdi s m i s s e d t he R L U IPA cl ai m becau se no zoning l aw s w ere ati ssue. Th e parti es c on du ct ed d is c o v e r ya n d p r o c e e d e d to tr ia l. C. Eul e s s ’

s O r di nanc e s andTr i alTe s t i m o ny B ef ore t ri a l, th e parti es s t i pu l ated t h at s i x E u l ess ordi n an ces preven t ed t h e sacr i f

i ce of f ou r- l egged an i m al s: S ec . 10
- 3. S l a u g h teri n gan i m a l s. I ts hal lbe unl awf

ult o sl aug ht e ro rt o m ai nt ai n a ny pr o pe r t y f o rt he purpos e o f

s l aught er i ng any ani m ali n t he c i t y.N o. 08- 10358

6 Sec. 1 0- 5. Exc e pt i ons and e xe m pt i ons notr e qui r e d t o b e ne ga t e d. I n any c o m p l a i n ta n d i n a n ya c t i o n o rp r o c e e d i n g s b r o u g h tf o rt he enf or c em entof

any pr ovi si on o f

t hi s c hapt er , i ts hal lnotbe ne c e s s ar y t o ne ga t e a ny e xc e pt i o n, e xc us e , pr o vi s i o n o re xe m pt i o n, w h i ch bu rd en sh a l lbe u p on the de fen d a n t. Se c. 10- 9. P en al t y f or vi ol ati on s of

cha pter. A n yp e r s o n v io la tin gth e te r m s a n d p r o v is io n s o f th is c h a p te rs h a ll be d ee m ed g ui l t y o f a m i sde m eanorand s hal lbe puni she d as pr o vi de d i n s e c t i o n 1

- 12 of t hi s C o de
. Eac h dayt hatsuc h v i o l at i o ns c o nt i nu e s s ha l l b e a s e p a r a t e o f fe ns e . Thi s p e na l t y s hal l be c u m u la tiv e o f a ll o th e rre m e d ie s . N o fin e im p o s e d h e r e u n d e rs h a ll be l es s t han $25. 00. Sec. 10
- 65. An i m al ca r e. I f t he f o l l o w i ng s hal loc c ur , t he a ni m alm ayb e i m po unde d a nd t he ow n er s h al lbe gu i l t y of a vi ol ati on of

t h i s c h ap t er:

. . . . ( 2) Aperson sha llbeat, cr u el l y i l lt reat , t orm en tabu se, ov erloa d , ov erw ork or oth erw i se h a rm an an i m a lor ca u se, i n sti ga te orper m i tany do g f i ght , c oc k f

i ght , bul l f

i ghtorot hercom bat betw een an i m al s orbetw een an i m al s and hu m an s.

. . . . ( 4) Aper so n shal lw i l l f ul l y w ound, t r ap, m a i m or c r i ppl e b y an y m et h od an y an i m al , bi rd o r f ow l
. I tshallal so be un l aw f u lf or a p e r s o n t o k i l la n ya n i ma l , b i r d o rf o wl , e x c e p td o me s t i c a t e d f o wl c o n s id e r e d a s g e n e r a l ta b le fa r e s u c h a s c h ic k e n o rtu r k e y , w ith in t he c i t y. Sec. 10
- 68. R es t r i ct i on on num ber of dogs , ca t s or ot her a n i m a l s, or c o m b i n a ti o n , to b e k ep t i n reside n ti a l p rem i ses. It sha l l be u n l aw f

u l t o keep or h arbor m ore t h an f ou r dogs, cat s or ot herani m al s, orc om bi nat i on o f ani m al s, be yond t he nor m al w eani ng age on any pr em i se s, ex c eptas per m i t t ed i n se c t i on 10- 104. Sec. 10
- 104 . R es t r i ct i ons o n si ze an d l ocat i ons o f ar ea f or ke e pi ng l i ve s t oc k. Itshallbe un l aw f

u lt o keep an d m ai n t ai n an y m u l e, don key , m are, h orse , colt , bu l l , cow , calf, sh ee p , go a t, cattl e or o th er live stock at a di s t anc e c l o s e rt han 10 0 fe e tf r o m a ny bui l di ng l o c at e d o n a dj o i ni ngN o. 08- 10358

Turtl es cl early fallwithin the prohibition on killing , but it is not e ntirelycl ear that 6 theycould not lawfully be kept in Euless. Th e city sugge sts init s bri ef th at the possessionof turtl es is prohibited, but the portion of the recordit cit es a s support i s testi monyth at turtl es cannot be tra ded inter state, butsays nothingabout possession (other th an prohibitingth em in daycarefacilities). E ule ss does no tcite anyauthorityfor a b an on turtl e po ssession, and Me rc edsu gges tsth e sale and po sse ssionof turtle s i s allow edwithso melimit ation . See 31 Tex . Admin. Code § 6 5. 331 (permittin g possessionan d sal e of certainkin ds of turtl es); 21 C .F .R
. § 1 2 4 0 .6 2 (forb id din gth e sale of turtle s with a carapace le n gth of l es s th anf

our inch es). Merce d’s pro pertyis describ ed in the recor d as a single family r es id en c e of 3,5 00 7 square fe et o n a wedge-shaped lot with a lon g driveway . Th e recor d is silent on the sizeof the lot. N ei t he rp ar t y sugge sts that it i s largeenough to me et the one -half acre p er animal re quirem ent north e 1 0 0 -f oot se tb ack
. 7 property t h at i s used f or hu m an ha bi t ati on or w i t h i n an encl osed a r e a o f le s s th a n o n e -h a lf a c r e (2 1 ,7 8 0 s q u a r e fe e t) p e ra n im a l. A ll such l i vest ock sha l lbe kep tw i t h i n e n clo se d a reas, an d a fen ce of su ff i ci en t st ren gth to con tain su ch an i m a l s sh a l lbe pr ov i d ed to m a in tai n t h e 100

- f

ootseparati on requi red hereby
. A l lprem i ses upo n w hi c h s uc h l i ve s t o c k ar e ke pt o rm ai nt ai ne d s hal lb e b r o ugh t i nt o c o m pl i anc e w i t h t he t e r m s o f t hi s s e c t i o n. Take n t o ge t he r , t he s e o r di nanc e s f o r bi d t he ke e pi ng o f

a ny m o r e t han f

o ur ani m al s a t a t i m e , a nd e ve n t he n o nl y c e r t ai n ki nds o f a ni m al s a r e pe r m i t t e d. F ou r- l egged a n i m al s su ch as those typi cal l y u sed i n Sa n t eri a cerem on i es ( sheep
an d goa t s) are expressl y di sal l ow ed to be kep t

— even f or a bri ef

peri od— or kil l ed. Su ch an i m al s c ou l d be k ept i f t h e keep er has a suf f i ci en t l y l arge pi ece 6 of pr ope r t y t o m ee tt he r equi r em ent s of § 10- 104. 7 E u l ess ’ s ord i n a n ces m a k e ex cep ti on s to th ese g en era lru l es, h ow ev er, b oth
o n t he i r fac e andi n pr ac t i c e . Se c t i o n 1 0- 65 a l l o w s do m e s t i c at e d f o w lt o b e ki l l e d,
a n d a ls o a llo w s th e u s e o f r o d e n t c o n tr o l m a te r ia ls
. S ee E u les s O rd
. § 1 0 -6 5 (8 ). Anot he ro r di nanc e a l l o w s de s i gna t e d c i t y e m pl o ye e s to ki l lr ab i d o rv i c i o us an im a ls. E u l ess O rd. § 10- 4. I n pract i ce, t h e ci t y does n otenfor ce t h ese ordi n an ces aga i n sthom eow n ers w h o k il l ra t s, m i ce, or sna kes, nor aga i n stN o. 08- 10358

At oral argument, Euless stated that veterin arians are limit ed t o n on - r es idential 8 are a s b yth e city’sz onin gl aws. The parti es also prepare d summaries of de position testimony for otherwitn esses th at 9 were a dmitted as evidence. Th e thru st of the city’s summaries is th at Santeriasacrifice s can be performe d anywhere. One witness’s summary , to whichMerced obje cted as mi sconstruing the deposition, stated that animal carca sses from Merced’s sacrifices foun d th eir way intoa 8 veter i n ari an s w h o pu tdow n l arge an i m al s. Th e enfor cem en tof t h ese 8 ordi n an ces i s c om pl ai n t
- dri ven , an d E u l ess w as un aw are of an y vi ol ati on s pri or t o t he c om pl ai nt s agai nstM er c ed, w ho, f or h i s par t , w as unaw ar e t hathe w as vi ol at i ng t he l aw be f or e he s poke w i t h ci t y o f f i c i al s i n 2006. A tt r i al , t h e c i t y c al l ed t w o e xper t s t o t es t i f y, t he f i r stof w hi c h, an att orney, described t h e governm en t alpu rpos e s beh i n d the E u l ess ordi n an ces. M e r c e d o bj e c t e d t o t hi s t e s t i m o ny, b utt he di s t r i c tc o ur ta l l o w e d i to n t he
u n derst an di n g t h at t h e exp ert w ou l d n otm erel y st ate t h e l aw . Th e pu rpose of t h e prohibi t i on on k eepi n g l i vest ock, accor di n g t o t h e ci t y’ s expert , i s t o prot ect t he pub l i c ’ s he al t h a nd s af e t y, pr i m ar i l y bye l i m i nat i ng t he unp l e as ant
concom i t an t s of

l i ve a n im a lcare ( e. g. , run of f of uri n e an d feces, f

l i es, sm el l s, n oise, po ssible disea se tra n sm i ssio n ). T h e ex p ert also op i n ed on the h ea l th
r am i f i c at i o ns o f

po s t
- s l aug ht e r di s po s al , no t i ng t hat c ar c as s e s at t r ac t bug s a nd
v e r m in
. H e fu r th e rs ta te d th a t k e e p in gv a r io u s k in d s o f a n im a ls to g e th e rin t i ghtquar t er s l eads t o i nt er spe c i es c onf l i c t s, w hi c h co ul d lea d t o i nj ury, i ndi c at i ng t hatthe hum ane t r eat m entof the ani m al s i s anot hergo ver nm ent al pu rpose. E ul es s’ s se c ond e xp er t , w hos e e xper t i se w as publ i c heal t h, t es t i f i ed t hat di s po s i ng o f

num e r o us a ni m alr e m ai ns i nvo l ve s c o nt ac tb e t w e e n hum ans a nd bl oo d, w hi c h ca n cr eat e a br ee di ng gr ound f ordi se as e. Al so , h e s t at ed t hat
e nt e r i c di s e as e s , s uc h a s s al m o ne l l a and t yp ho i d, c an r e s ul tf r o m c o nc e nt r at i o ns o f a n im a l w a s te , a n d th a t d is p o s a l o f a n im a l re m a in s in b o d ie s o f w a te ris
u n l aw f u l , encou rages f

l i es t o breed, an d cau ses odor an d san i t ati on probl em s. 9N o. 08- 10358

local woo ded area or p ond. The citystipulated, however—an d th e di strict court found—th at it did not have any evidence that Merced unl awfully disposed of ani mal remains. Further, th e district court credited Merced’s expert, who t estifie d th at sacrifices o ccur where the orishas in struct , whichi s u su allyth e h om e of th e of fici atin g prie st , b ut could b e a te mp le orth e h om e of anoth er p riest. E ule ss cite s a laundryli st of Texas statute s a nda dmini strativeregulation s 10 pert ainin gto th e tr an sp ortation , in sp ection , an d per mi tti ng of lives to ckan d fo wlinT exa s. Noneof thesecitations, however, with the possibl e exceptio n of 30 Texas Admini strativeC ode § 3 35.2 5, directly bears onth e i ssue of al ayp er s on lawfullydispo sing of the remains of h ealthyanim als
. Th e oth erdis po sal provis io n s cite d b y th e cityp ertainto di se a se d anim als
. E.g. , 4 Tex . Admin. Code § 59 .12. Whileth e district court couched these statements as findings of fact, the conclusions 11 re gardin gth e el em entsof aTR FRA claimare , a s not edb elow , reviewe d a s m att er s of law.

9 Y e t E u le s s p e r m its th e b u tc h e r in ga n d d is p o s a l o f la r g e a n im a ls , lik e d e e r , if t h ey are dead w h en broug h ti n t o t h e ci t y. R est au ran t s s om et i m es di spose of
or gani c w as t e i n dum pst er s, w hi c h, pert he c i t y’ s expe r t , pr es en ts t he s am e h eal t h concerns. T h e f ocus on d i sposalof

t h e a n i m al s’rem ai n s ap pea rs t o b e som et h i n g of
a r ed her r i ng. The r el evant c i t y or di nance, § 10- 70 (r equi r i ng t he l aw f uldi spo sa l of a dead an i m alw i t h i n t w en t y- f ou r hou rs of

di scovery) , i s n oton the agreed l i st
o f o rd i n a n ces th a t pre ve n ts M erce d ’ s sa crif i ces. N or ca n the ci ty l eg i tim a te ly obj ectt o t h e di sposalof sa cri f i ci alan i m al s w h en i tperm i t s t h e di sposalof hunt e d a ni m al s . Fur t he r , M e r c e d ha s e xp r e s s e d wi l l i ngn e s s t o c o m pl y w i t h t he ci t y’ s l aw s i n t h at r egard , an d there i s no evi den ce t h at he ha s u n la w fu ll y or unsani t ar i l y di spo se d of anyt hi ng. So l ong as he l aw f ul l y d i spo se s of

t he dea d
a n im a ls w ith in tw e n ty -fo u rh o u r s , h e h a s n o t v io l a t e d th e o r d in a n c e ’ s p la in t erm s. 10 D
. T h e D i st ri ctCou rt ’

s D eci si on The di s t r i c tc o ur ta do pt e d t he par t i e s ’s t i pul at e d fac t s , a nd f o und t hatt he
c i t y or di nances di d notbur den M er c ed’ s f r ee ex er c i se of

r el i gi on. Spec i f

i c al l y, 11 t he c o ur ts t at e d:N o. 08- 10358

10 W e l l , y o u kno w , t hi s i s a di f f i c ul tq ue s t i o n b e c aus e i f [M e r c e d] h a d re c e iv e d th e c o m m u n ic a tio n th a t s a id h e o u g h t t o [s a c r ific e in hi s ho us e ] , and r e f

r ai n f r o m doi ng i tbe c aus e of t he or di nanc e s of

t he ci ty, I t h i n k I w ou l d h a ve to say I’ m pe rsu a d ed tha t t h e a n sw er to t h at parti s yes [ i
. e. , t h e ordi n a n ce s bu rden M erced’ s f ree exerc i se of rel i gion ], bu t I h a ve n ’ t he a rd tha t. I do n’ tkno w t hatI c an s ayf r o m a pr e po nde r anc e o f t he e vi de nc e , w hi c h i s t he b ur de n t hatI ha ve t o a ppl y, t hatt he e n for ce m e n t o f th e or d in a n ce s in q u e stio n a g a in st th e p la in tiff b u rd en s th e free ex ercise of h i s reli gion
. I ca n ’ t do tha t. In short, t h e di st ri ctcourtconcl u ded t h at th e o rd inan ces di d n otbu rden M erced’ s rel i gi ou s practi ce becau se h e ha d n ott est i f i ed the ori sha s tol d h i m to sacri f i ce i n h i s hou se. Th e courtl aterconcl u ded t h at t h e ordi n an ces f u rt h ered
a com pel l i n g govern m en t al i n t erest an d w ere t h e l east rest ri ct i ve m ean s of ad van ci n g t h em . Th e di st ri ctcourtdi d n oti ssue a w ri t t en opi n i on , bu tentered j u dg m en ti n favor of E u l ess an d aw arded cos ts a g a in stM erced. I tden i ed Eu l e s s ’ s m o t i o n f

o ra t t o r n e yfe e s , wh i c h t h e c i t yr e q u e s t e d u n d e r4 2 U. S
. C. § 1 98 8 as t he pr e va i l i ng pa r t y. M e r c e d t i m e l y f i l e d an ap pea l fr o m t he j u dg m en t , an d E u l ess t i m el y f i l ed an app ealf

rom t h e den i al of att orney fees
. T h ese ap p ea l s w ere con soli d a ted i n this cou rt. I I . DI S CU S S I ON M erce d raises co n sti tu ti on a lcl a i m s u n d er th e F i rst an d F o u rteen th A m e n d m e n t s , c la im in gth is c a s e is “o n a llfo u r s ” w it h th e S u p r e m e C o u r t ’s
w e ll-k n o w n d e c is io n in Chur c h of t he L ukum iB ab al u Ay e , Inc . v. Ci ty of Hi ale ah , 50 8 U
. S. 5 20 ( 19 93 )
. W hi l e t hi s ca s e sha r e s m anysi m i l ar i t i e s w i t h L u k u mi , we b e g in b y a n a ly z in g M e r c e d ’ s s ta tu to r y c la im u n d e r T R F R A , w h ic h , if su c c e s s fu l,
o b v ia te s th e n e e d to d is c u s s th e co n s tit u tio n a l q u e s tio n s . See , e . g. , Nw . A u stin Mu n . Ut i l
. D i st
. No. O n e v. Hol d er , 1 2 9 S . C t. 250 4, 251 3 ( 200 9) ( “ [ I] ti s a w e ll -e s t a b li s h e d p r in c ip le g o v e r n i n gth e p r u d e n te x e r c is e o f t h is C o u r t ’s ju r is d ic tio n th a t n o r m a llyt h e C o u r t w ill n o t d e c id e a co n s tit u tio n a l q u e s tio n ifN o. 08- 10358

A n eutr al law of general applicab ility must still pass the strict scrutiny test if more 12 th ano n e co n stitution al right isi mp licate d. E.g. , Wisconsin v. Yoder , 40 6 U .S. 20 5 (1 972) (combinin g the right to free exercise of reli gion with parents’ fundame ntal right to r aise their chil dr ena s th eych oo se). 11 t he r e i s s o m e o t he rg r o und upo n whi c h t o di s po s e o f t he c as e . ” ( quo t i ng Esc am bi a C ou n ty v. McMi l l an , 4 6 6 U .S
. 4 8 , 5 1 (19 8 4 )); As hw ande rv . Te nn. Val l ey Aut h. , 2 9 7 U .S . 2 8 8 , 3 4 7 (1 9 3 0 ) (B r a n d e is , J ., c o n c u r r in g) (“T h e C o u r t w ill
no tpa s s upo n a c o ns t i t ut i o nalq ue s t i o n a l t ho ugh pr o pe r l y pres e nt e d b y t he
r ec or d, i f

t her e i s al so p rese n t so m e o t hergr ound upon w hi c h t he c as e m ay be d is p o s e d o f.”); Burt o n v . Uni t ed S t ate s , 1 96 U
. S. 2 83 , 2 95 ( 19 05 ) ( “ I ti s no tt he h a b it o f th e c o u r t to d e c id e q u e s tio n s o f a co n s tit u tio n a l n a tu r e u n le s s a b s o lu te ly
n e ce ss a ry to a d e cisio n of th e ca se .”)
. U nderTR FR A , “ [ w ] hi l e w e m ustac c eptt he t r i alc our t ’ s fac tf i ndi ngs su p p orted by the ev i d en ce, th e u l ti m a te a n s w e rs d eterm i n e th e lega lri gh ts p rotecte d by the A ct an d ar e t h u s m a tters of l a w . ” B arr v. C i ty of S i n t on , ___ S .W .3 d

___ , 2 0 0 9 W L 1 7 1 2 7 9 8 , a t* 8 (T e x . J u n e 1 9 , 2 0 0 9 ). “A d is t r ic tc o u r t ’s l e ga l c o nc l us i o ns at a be nc h t r i ala r e r e vi e w e d de no vo an d i t s f i n di n gs of

factare rev i ew ed f

or clear erro r. ” Adki ns v . Kas par , 3 9 3 F .3d 5 5 9 , 5 6 3 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 4 ). T h e h i st ory of st ate r el i gi ou s f reedom act s i s, by n ow , w el lkn ow n . B ef ore 199 0, t h e U n i t ed Stat es S u prem e C ou rt i n t erpret ed t h e F ree E xerci se C l au se of t he Fi r stA m endm entt o p r ot ec tr el i gi ous pr ac t i c es s ubst ant i al l y bur dened by g o v e r n m e n ta l re g u la tio n u n le s s t h e yf u r th e r e d a co m p e llin gs ta te in te r e s t. S ee C i ty of B oerne v. Flores , 5 2 1 U .S . 5 0 7 , 5 1 3

– 1 4 (1 9 9 7 ); S h erbert v. V erner , 374 U
. S. 3 98 ( 19 63 )
. I n 1 99 0, t he Cour ti n E mploym ent D i vi sion , D ep a rtm ent of H u m a n R es o u rc es v. S m ith , 4 94 U
. S. 8 72 ( 19 90 ) , e xe m pt e d f r o m t hi s b al anc i ng te s t n e u tr a l la w s o f g e n e r a l a p p lic a b ility , su c h th a t O r e g o n ’ s cr im in a l la w s co u ld proscr ibe a N ative A m eri can ’ s rel i gi ou s u se of p eyote w i t h ou tv i ol ati n g t h e F i rst A m en d m en t. 12N o. 08- 10358

12 C on gress di rect l y respond ed to Sm i t h by en act i n g t h e R el i gi ou s Freed om R es t or at i on A c tof

1993 (R FR A) , Pu b. L. N o. 10 3- 141, 107 St at
. 1488 ( 1993) ( codi f i ed a t 4 2 U .S. C
. §§ 2000 bb– 200 0bb

- 4) , w h i ch rest ored t h e S h erber t bal anci ng t es tby r equi r i ng any g o v e r n m e n ta l r e g u la tio n th a t s u b s ta n tia lly bu rden ed the f

ree exerc i se of

rel i gi on t o em pl oy th e le a st rest ri ct i ve m ean s of
a d v a n c in ga co m p e llin gg o v e r n m e n ta l in te r e s t. Flores , 52 1 U
. S. a t5 12 –1 6. The S u p r e m e C o u r t s tr u c k R F R Ad o w n a s a p p lie d t o t h e s ta te s , h o w e v e r , b e c a u s e it
ex cee d ed C on gr ess ’ s en forcem en t p ow er un d er secti on 5 of th e F o u r teen th A m e n d m e n t. I

d. at 53 2

– 3 4
. T ex a s, am on g o th er sta tes, l i k ew i se re sp on d ed to Sm i t h by en act i n g T R F R A , w h i ch provi des t h e sam e prot ect i on s t o rel i gi ou s f ree e x e r c is e e n v is io n e d b yt h e f r a m e r s o f its fe d e r a l co u n te r p a r t, R F R A
. B arr , 2009 W L 1 7 1 2 7 9 8 a t* 5
. W i t h t h i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g , we t u r n t o t h e t e x to f T RF RA. T exas C i vi lP ract i ce and R em edi es C ode § 110
. 003 provi des: ( a) Su bj ectt o Su bsect i on (b) , a g overnm en tagen cy m ay n ot s ubs t ant i al l y bur de n a pe r s o n’ s f r e e e xe r c i s e o f

r e l i gi o n. (b ) S u b secti on ( a) does not app l y i f t h e governm en tagen cy de m o ns t r at e s t hatt he a ppl i c at i o n o f t he b ur de n t o t he pe r s o n: (1) i s i n f

u rth era n ce of a co m p ell i n g g ov ern m en tal i n teres t; and (2) i s th e least res tri ctive m ea n s of f u rth erin g th a t i n teres t. T h e S u p r e m e C o u r t o f T e x a s re c e n tly a p p lie d T R F R Afo rth e f ir s t tim e in B arr v. C i ty of

S i n t on . 2 00 9 W L 17 12 79 8. I n B arr , a loc alpa s t o rs e tup a reli giou s h a l fw a y h ou se to h elp n on -vi olen t offen d ers re en ter society; a p p l i ca n ts
w er e r equi r ed t o sign a st at em entof fai t h i ndi c at i ng bel i ef i n bas i c C hri st i an doctr i n es, an d to agree t o a l i stof rul es descr ibed as “bib li ca l g u id el i n es f or C h ri sti a n l i vin g.” I

d. a t * 1
. T h e cit yth e n p a s s e d a z o n in go r d in a n c e e ffe c tiv e ly b a n n in gh a lfw a yh o u s e s f r o m S in to n , a n d th e p a s to rs u e d
. I d. at *2. T h e court concl u ded t h at Si n to n ’ s ordi n an ce vi ol ated T R F R Aaf t er app l yi n g a f

ou r- pa rt t est : ( 1) w h et h er t h e governm en t ’ s r egu l ati ons b ur de n t he pl ai nt i f f ’ s f r e e exerci seN o. 08- 10358

I nth ec o nt e xtof

RLU I PA , thi scirc uitu s e sth ef o ll o win gd e f

initi o nof

“ s ub stanti al 13 bur den”: [A] government actionor regulationcre ates a “ substantial bu r d en” on a reli gious exercise if it truly pressure s theadh erent tosignificantlymodify his 13 o f r e l i gi o n; ( 2) w he t he r t he bur de n i s s ubs t ant i al ; ( 3) w he t her t h e re gul at i o ns f u rt h er a c om pel l i n g govern m en t alinter est ; a n d ( 4) w h et h er the regulat i on s are th e le a s t r e s tr ic tiv e m e a n s o f fu r th e r in gth a t in te r e s t. I d. a t* 8. W e a ppl y t he
s a m e a p p r o a c h t o t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f T RF RA. A
. FreeExerc i se of R el igi on TR FR Adef

i nes “f r ee exer c i se of

rel i gi on” as “ an ac torr ef usalt o a c tt hat i s s u bstanti al l y m ot i vated by si n cere rel igiou s bel i ef
. I n deter m i n i n g w h et h er an ac to rr e f

us alt o a c ti s s ubs t ant i al l y m o t i va t e d b y s i nc e r e r e l i gi o us b e l i ef
u n der t h i s c h ap t er, i tis n otn ecess ary t o d et erm i n e tha tthe actor ref u salt o act i s m ot i vated by a central pa rt or central requ i rem en t of t h e person ’ s si n cere r e lig io u s b e lie f.” T e x . C iv
. P r a c . & R e m . C o d e § 1 1 0 .0 0 1 (a )(1 ). A s d is c u s s e d in B arr , t he f

oc us o f thi s i ni t i alprong i s on pl ai nt i f f ’ s f r ee exer c i se of

rel i gi on; t hat i s, w het herpl ai nt i f

f ’ s si nce r e r el i gi ous be l i efs m ot i vat e hi s c onduct
. 200 9 W L 17 1 2 7 9 8 a t* 8

– 9
. F o re x a m p l e , i f M e r c e d wa n t e d t o k e e p a n d k i l lg o a t s a nd
s he e p b e c aus e he c o ul d t he r e bye ns ur e t he qu al i t y o f t he m e athe c o ns um e d,
s uc h a pur po s e , w hi l e m e r i t o r i o us , i s no n- r e l i gi o us i n m o t i va t i o n a nd l i e s b e yo nd T R F R A ’ s r e a ch
. E u les s d o e s n o t d isp u te th a t M e rc e d ’ s sin ce re re li g iou s b e li e fs
m o t i ve d hi s c o nduc t ; hi s ki l l i ngs w e r e , a s de s c r ibe d byhi s ex pe r t , sa c r i f i c e s a nd
n otm ere s l au gh t er. B
. S u bst an t i al B u rden W e n e x tconsi der w h et h er E u l ess’ s or di n an ces sub st an t i al l y bu rden M e r c e d ’ s s in c e r e re lig io u s p r a c tic e s . A c c o r d in g to th e T e x a s S u p r e m e C o u r t, a bur de n und e rTRF RA i s s ubs t ant i ali f i t is “ r e alv s . m e r e l y pe r c e i ve d, a nd sign i fi ca n t vs. trivial. ” B arr , 2009 W L 1712798 at*9
. The i nqui r y i s c as e- by- 13N o. 08- 10358

reli gious beh avior and significantlyviol ate his reli gious beliefs.
. . . [T]he effect of agovernme nt action or regulationis significant when it eith er (1 ) influe nces the adherentto act in a way that violates his reli gious beliefs, or (2) forc es th e adherentto choo se b etw e en, on the oneh and, enj oying some ge nerallyavail abl e, non -trivial b enef

it , an d, o nth e oth erh an d, f ollowin ghisr eligiou s b eliefs
. Adkins , 39 3 F .3d at 5 70. 14 c a s e a n d fa c t-s p e c ific
. I d. ; cf
. Adki ns , 3 9 3 F .3d a t 5 7 1 (ap p lyin gR L U IP A). F e d e r a l ca s e la w in te r p r e tin gR F R Aa n d R L U IP Ais re le v a n t. Ba rr , 2 0 0 9 WL 1712798 at*5
. I n S h erber tv. V

erner , the cas e se tt in g the stan d a rd T R F R Asee k s to rest ore, a m em ber of t h e S even t h

- da y A dv en t i st C h u rch w as t erm i n ated by h er em p l oy er for n ot w ork i n g o n S a tu rd a y, an d ap p l i ed f or u n em p l oy m en t ben efi ts as provi ded by S ou t h C arol i n a l aw . 374 U
. S
. at 3 9 9

– 4 0 0. Th e st ate denied be ne f i t s b e c aus e s he w as a bl e t o w o r k a nd r e f us e d t o do s o , a re f

us alt hatl ac ke d, in th e s ta te ’ s o p in io n , g o o d ca u s e . I d. a t 4 0 0

– 0 1
. T h e S u p r e m e C o u r t fo u n d th is rest ri ct i on bu rden ed p l ai n t i f f ’ s r el i gi ou s f

ree exerc i se: H ere not on l y i s i tapp aren tt h at appel l ant ’ s decl ared i n el i gi bi l i t y f or ben ef i t s de r i ve s s o l e l y f

r o m t he pr ac t i c e o f

he rr e l i gi o n, b utt he pr e s s ur e upo n he rt o f o r e go t hatpr ac t i c e i s u nm i s t ak ab l e . The rul i n g f orces her t o choose bet w een f ol l ow i n g t h e prece p ts of her r e l i gi o n and f

o r fe i t i ng be ne f

i t s , o n t he o ne hand , and aba ndo ni ng o ne o f t he pr e c e pt s o f he r r e l i gi o n i n o r de r t o ac c e pt w o rk, on the o t he rha nd. I d. a t4 04
. Si m i l ar l y, i n Wi sconsi n v. Y od er , t h e C o u r tfo u n d th a tth e s t a t e ’s
c o m pul s o r y e duc at i o n l aw bur de ne d Am i s h pa r e nt s ’r e l i gi ou s pr ac t i c e s : “ The i m pa ctof the com pu l sory- att en da n ce l aw on respon den t s’pract i ce of t h e A m i sh
r e lig io n is n o t o n lys e v e r e , b u t in e s c a p a b le , fo r th e W is c o n s in la w a ffir m a tiv e ly
c om pel s t hem , under t hre at of c r i m i nal sa nct i on, t o per f or m ac t s und eni abl y at
o d d s w ith f

u n d a m e n ta l t e n e ts o f th e irre lig io u s b e lie fs .” 4 0 6 U .S . a t 2 1 8 ; seealso T hom as v. R e vi e w B d. of I nd. E mpl oy m e ntSec
. D i v. , 450 U
. S. 707, 717–18 ( 1981)N o. 08- 10358

15 ( “ [W he r e a s t at e ] de ni e s s uc h a be ne f i t be c aus e o f

c o nduc tm and at e d b y r e l i gi o us b e lie f, th e r e b yp u tt in gs u b s ta n tia l p r e s s u r e o n a n a d h e r e n t t o m o d ifyh is be h a v i o r a n d t o v i o l a t e h i s b e l i e fs , a b u r d e n u p o n r e l i g i o n e x i s t s . W h i l e t he
com pu l si on m ay be i n di rect , t h e i n f ri n gem en tup on f

ree exerc i se i s non et h el ess su b sta n tia l. ”). O u r deci si on s i n t erpret i n g R F R Aan d R L U IPA l i kew i se provi de gu i da n ce. I n D i azv . Col l i ns , f

o re xa m pl e , w e he l d un de rRFR A t hata p ri s o n’ s g r o o m i ng r egul at i ons s ubst ant i a l l y burdened a N at i ve A m er i c an’ s r el i gi ous pr ac t i c e b y pre vent i ng hi m f

r om w ear i ng l ong hai r as r equi r ed byhi s r el i gi on. 114 F. 3d 69, 7 2

– 7 3 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ); acc or d L ongor i a v. D r e t ke , 507 F
. 3d 898 , 903 ( 5th C i r. 2 0 0 7 ) (h o ld in gth a ta p r is o n e rw h o a ll e g e d th a th e w a s p u n is h e d p e rth e p r is o n ’s
r ul e s f o rr e f us i ng t o c uthi s ha i r , w hi c h he w o r e l o ng ac c o r di ng t o hi s r e l i gi o us tr a d itio n , st a te d a cla im u n d e rR L U IP Ab a s e d o n th e s u b s ta n tia l b u r d e n to h is rel i gi ou s f

ree exerc i se)
. W e decl i n ed to f i n d a su bstanti albu rden , how e ver, w h en th e p riso n ’ s r e g u la tion s p re v e n te d th e in m a te fro m ca rr y in gsa c r e d item s (a he ad ba nd a nd a m e di c i ne po uc h) f o ra ppr o xi m at e l y t w o ho ur s e ac h da y w he n he
w a s n o t in h is ce ll. D i az , 114 F. 3d at72. W e r e ac he d a s i m i l arr e s ul ti n Mayf i e l d v . Te x as D e

par t m e ntof

Cr i m i nal Justi ce , in w h i ch pri son of f i ci al s s everel y l i m i t ed the abil i t y of pract i t i on ers of t he O di ni s t/Asa t r u fai t h t o m e e t as a gr o up be c aus e a s e c ur i t y- t r ai ne d, r e l i gi o us vol u n t eer w as un ava i l able t o cond u ct t h e m eet i n gs. 529 F
. 3d 599 , 602 ( 5th C i r. 2 0 0 8 )
. W e hel d, based on t h e sum m ary j u dg m en trec ord, t h at a f i n der of fact
c o ul d c o nc l ude t hatt he pr i s o n’ s po l i c y i m posed a s ubs t ant i alb ur de n o n t he p la in tiff

’ s re lig io u s fr e e e x e r c is e . I d. at614–15 ( di st i ngui shi ng Adki ns v . Kas par on t he gr ounds t hatt he pl ai nt i f f t her e had t he abi l i ty t o g at heri n a gr oup at l e as t o nc e a m o nt h, a f r e que nc y no tpr e s e nti n Mayfield ; beca use t he pol i c y m ay no th ave be e n uni f

o r m l y i m pl e m e nt e d a s i n Adki ns ; an d becau se t h e Mayfield pl ai nt i f f di d no t h ave t he s am e a c c e s s t o a l t e r nat i ve m e ans o f w o r s hi p a s t heN o. 08- 10358

I n Adkins , a member of th e Yahweh Evangelical Assembly (YEA ) brought a clai m 14 unde r RLUIPA becaus e inmate- adhe rent s of that faithw erenot allow ed tomeeton YEA Sabbaths and holy day s. 393 F.3 d at 571 . As in Ma yf ie ld , th e prisonh ad apolicyrequiring a reli gious volunteer at group meetin gs, butanoutside volunteer was ab le to c ome about once amo n th
. Id. at 5 6 2
. Th e YEA me mb er s als o h a d acc es s to reli giou s m ateri als(e. g ., b ooks, video s, au diot ape s)
. I

d. Th e Adkins court re je cted plaintiff’ s RLUI PA cl aim because the policy did not i mpose asub stanti al bur den on his reli gious practice a s it was equallyapp lie d to all reli gio n s. Id
. at57 1. 16 pl ai nt i f f i n Adki ns )
. The pr i son al s o pr o hibi t e d t he pl ai nt i f f f r o m po s s e s s i ng 14
r une s t o ne s ( s m al lt i l e s m ad e f r o m v ar i o us m at e r i al s w i t h c har ac t e r s o f t he
anc i e ntr une a l pha be tc ar ve d on t he m ) , w hi c h ar e es s e nt i alt o t he O di ni s tfai t h. I d. at 602
. H ere, t oo, w e hel d that t h e pl ai n t i f f presented evi den ce f rom w h i ch a f i n der of fact coul d c on cl u de t h at t h e pri son’ s pol i ci es s u bstanti al l y bu rden ed h is re lig io u s e x e r c is e . I d. a t 6 1 5

– 1 6 ; seealso Sossam on v. L on e Star Stat e of T ex. , 560 F. 3d 316, 333–34 ( 5t h C i r . 2009) (f i ndi ng genui ne i ss ues of m at er i al factprecl u di n g sum m ary j u dg m en t on t h e “ sub st an t i albu rden ” qu est i on un der RL U I PAw he n pr i s o n of f i c i al s deni e d us e of

a cha pe lfo rre l i gi o us se r vi c e s , b ut
a llo w e d its u s e fo rs e c u la rfu n c tio n s ); B aran ow skiv. Hart , 48 6 F
. 3 d 11 2 , 12 5 ( 5 th C i r . 2007) (hol di ng t hata pri so n’ s pol i c y o f notpr ovi di ng kos herf oo ds “ m ay be d e e m e d to w o rk a su b sta n tia l bu rd e n u p o n [p la in tiff ’ s] p ra ctice of h is fa ith ”). T h e up shot of

these opi n i on s i s that, a ta m i n i m u m , t h e governm en t ’ s ba n of c onducts i nce r el y m ot i va ted by re l i gi ous be l i ef s ubst ant i al l y bur dens an ad h erent’ s f

ree exerc i se of

tha trel i gi on . W h i l e n ota g en eralru l e— t h e i n qu i ry i s fa c t
- s p e c i f

i c —we n o t e t h a t s u c h a c o n c l u s i o n a c c o r d s w i t h t h e T e x a s S u p r e me Cour t ’ s de c i s i o n i n B arr : “A r es t r i c t i on need not be c om pl et el y pro hi bi t i ve t o b e s u b s ta n tia l; it is e n o u g h t h a t a lte r n a tiv e s fo rth e re lig io u s e x e r c is e a r e s e v e r e ly
r e s tr ic te d .” 2 0 0 9 W L 1 7 1 2 7 9 8 a t * 1 2 ; a cc o rd G re en e v . S o la n o Co u n ty Ja il , 513 F. 3d 982, 988 ( 9t h C i r . 2008 ) ( “ W e have l i t t l e di f f i cu l t y i n co ncl udi ng t hatan out r i ghtban o n a par t i c ul arr el i gi ous ex er c i se i s a s ubst ant i albur den on t hat rel i gi ou s exerci se. ” )
. If a govern m en t ’ s rest ri ct i on of rel i gi ou s c on du ctm ay be aN o. 08- 10358

17 su b stan ti a lbu rd en , the n a co m p l ete b a n pr ese n ts a m u ch stron ge r cas e . W e tu rn n ow to t h e rec o r d be fore u s. A s n oted ab ov e, w e rev i ew the an sw ers to ul t i m at e q ue s t i o ns und e r TR FR A a s m at t e r s o f l aw, a nd a c c o r di ngl y unde r t ak e a re v ie w o f th e e v id e n c e t o d e te r m in e w h e th e rE u le s s ’ s o r d in a n c e s s u b s ta n tia lly bu rden M erced’ s r el i gi ou s exerc i se. T h e di st ri ctcourtconcl u ded t h at M erced’ s f ree exerci se of rel i gi on w as not bu rden ed because h e di d n ott est i f y t h at t h e ori sha s to ld h im to s a c r ific e a t h is E u l ess h om e. W e a re trou b l ed by this con cl u sion f or t w o rea son s. F i rst, pr e di c at i ng a s ubs t ant i alb ur de n o n t he r e s ul t s o f a r e l i gi o us c e r e m o ny ( divi ni ng t h e w i l lof

t h e o r i s has ) i m per m iss ib ly a l l ow s j u dg es t o eval u ate t h e i n t ri caci es of a rel i gi ou s practi ce. T h e j u di ci ary i s i l l

- sui t ed to opi n e on theol ogi calm att ers, a n d s h o u ld a v o id d o in gs o . S ee S m ith , 4 94 U
. S. a t8 87 ( “ [ I ] t is n o tw i t hi n t he j udi c i alke n t o q ue s t i o n t he c e nt r al i t y o f pa r t i c ul arbe l i e fs orpr ac t i c e s t o a fai t h,
o rt h e v a lid ity o f p a r tic u la rlit ig a n ts ’in te r p r e ta tio n s o f th o s e cr e e d s . R e p e a te d ly
a n d i n ma n yd i f

fe r e n tc o n t e x t s , we h a v e w a r n e d t h a tc o u r t s mu s tn o tp r e s u me to d e te rm in e th e p la ce o f a p a rticu la r be li e f in a re li g ion o r th e p la u sib il ityof a
re li g iou s c la im .” (q u o ta tion m a rk s o m itted )). S e c o n d , t h e e v i d e n c e d o e s n o ts u p p o r tt h e d i s t r i c tc o u r t ’ s c o n c l u s i o n . Tw o pi eces of

ev i den ce are si gn i f

i can tto t h i s det erm i n ati on . Fir st , M erced’ s expert te s tifie d , a n d th e c ity c o n c e d e d , th a t a n im a l s a c r ific e is e s s e n tia l to th e S a n te r ia rel i gi on , an d that i ti s usu al l y perf orm e d in th e of

f i ci ati n g pri est ’ s hou se. Sec ond, M er c ed t es t i f i ed t hat he c eas ed t o pe r f or m Sant er i a r i t ual s out l aw ed by t he Eul e s s o r di nanc e s , i nc l udi ng t he i ni t i at i o n o f a pr i est
. H e s t at e d t hathe coul d n oti n i t i ate an asp i ri n g pri estbecau se he coul d n otdo so i n hi s hou se: Q
. M r. M erc e d, s i nc e M ayo f 2 00 5, ha ve y o u kno w n s o m e bo dyw ho m i ghtha ve w ant e d t o b e i ni t i at e d? A
. T h at i s c orrec t , si r, an d they are on hol d. Y es. Q
. D o t h e yw a n ty o u t o i n i t i a t e t h e m? A
. T h a t’ s corre ct.N o. 08- 10358

Assuming

the five to seve n goats or s hee p needed to initiat e apri est, Merced would 15 nee d atle ast twoa ndo ne - ha lf to three and one -half acres of land to me et the city’s requirement. While not impossib le, compelling a personto acquire ahouse on such a lot in a suburban environ ment to kee p a few animal s for a matter of hours is asub stanti al bur den. 18 Q
. A n d y o u d i d n o ti n i t i a t e t h e m? A
. C orre ct. Q
. A n d w h y n ot? A
. B ecau se I cann otdo i tat h om e. T h e o r d a in in g o f n e w p r ie s ts , e s s e n tia l to th e c o n tin u a tio n o f th e S a n te r ia
r e l i gi o n, i s b ar r e d b y t he Eul e s s o r di nanc e s . Des pi t e Eul e s s ’ s pr o t e s t at i o n t o t he
con trary , the restrict i on on k i l l i n g th e fou r-l eg ge d an i m a l s n ee d ed t o i n i ti a te pri es t s i s a bs ol ut e; t he abi l i t y t o ki l ls m al lnum ber s of f ow ldoe s notal t ert hat fa c t
. T h e r e l e v a n ti n q u i r yi s n o twh e t h e rg o v e r n m e n t a lr e g u l a t i o ns s ubs t ant i al l y bur de n a pe r s o n’ s r e l i gi o us f r e e e xer ci se b r o ad l y de f i ne d, b ut
w h e th e rth e re g u la tio n s s u b s ta n tia lly b u r d e n a s p e c ific r e lig io u s p r a c tic e . S ee Tex
. Ci v. Pr ac . & Rem
. Code § 1 10
. 00 1( a) ( 1) ( de f i ni ng “ f r e e e xe r c i s e o f

r e l i gi o n” as “ an actor ref

u salt o act , ” i n d ica tin g th a ta parti cul ar rel i gi ou s act i vi t y, not t h e rel i gi on as a w h ol e, i s t h e app ropria te foc u s of t h e substanti albu rden
a n a ly s is ); G r e e ne , 513 F. 3d at 987 (r ej ec t i ng, und er R LU I P A , the br oad in te r p r e ta tio n o f “r e lig io u s e x e r c is e ” a s t h e g e n e r a l p r a c tic e o f o n e ’ s re lig io n in favor of a narr ow eri nt er pre t at i on t hatl i m i t s t he c onc eptt o a par t i c ul ar rel i gi ou s practi ce)
. T h u s, M erced’ s abi l i t y t o perf orm som e cer em on i es does not
m ea n th e ci ty’ s ord i n a n ces do n ot b u rd en oth er Sa n teria p ra cti ce s . S ee B arr , 200 9 W L 171 279 8 at *10 ( “ [A ] bu rden on a p erson’ s r el i gi ou s exerc i se i s not in su b sta n tia l sim p ly b e ca u se h e co u ld a lw a y s c h o o se to d o so m e th in gels e .”)
. Li kew i se , t he c i t y’ s ban on kee pi ng l i ves t oc k i s ef fec t i vel y o ut r i ghti n re si dent i al
s ubd i vi s i o ns w he r e l o ts i z e s a r e o f t e n i nad e qua t e t o m e e tt he c i t y’ s si ze a nd set back requi rem en t s. 15N o. 08- 10358

E ule ss ab ando ned on appeal its argument made in the district court that Merc ed’s 16 fr eeexerci sei s notb urd enedb yitso rdin ance s b ec au seh e couldgo el se wh ere top ractic e thos e el em entsof hisr eligio n . Th e cityf ail edto inclu dethisargu me nt initsb ri ef
. SeeMosleyv . Dretke , 3 7 0F .3 d 4 6 7 , 4 7 4( 5 thC ir
. 2 0 0 4). 19 M erced c an n otp erf

orm the cerem on i es d i ct ated by h i s r el i gi on . Th i s i s a b u rd en , an d i t i s su b stan ti a l
. It i s rea lan d si gn i fi ca n t, h a vin g force d M erce d to
c h o o s e b e tw e e n liv in g in E u le s s a n d p r a c tic in gh is re lig io n . Cf
. Adki ns , 393 F. 3d at5 70 (ho l di n g t h at a g o ve r nm e nt ’ s r e gul at i o n i s s i gni f i c anti f i t“ f o r c e s t he ad h erent t o choose bet w een , on the on e h an d, enj oyi n g som e g en eral l y ava i l able,
n o n -t r iv ia l b e n e fit, a n d , o n th e oth e r h a n d , follow in gh is re li g iou s b e li e fs”). In d ee d , the bu rd en on M erce d is e ve n g rea ter b eca u se, l i k e th e A m i sh pa ren ts i n Y od er , h e fa c e s cr im in a l p r o s e c u tio n if h e e n g a g e s in co n d u c t e s s e n tia l to h is
r e lig io n . S ee 406 U
. S. at218. 16 E ul es s al so ar gues t hata bur den i s no t su b stant i ali f i ti s i nci dent alby
w a yo f a la w o f g e n e r a l a p p li c a t i o n . S u c h a n in t e r p r e t a t io n v io la t e s T R F R A ’s pl ai n langu age. T R F R Aapp l i es t o “ any rul e, order, deci si on , practi ce, or ot h er exe r c i se of gov er nm ent alaut hor i t y. ” Tex. C i v. Prac
. & R em . C ode § 110. 002( a) ( em phasi s added)
. Thi s br oad l anguage do es not p erm i t t hi s c our tt o r ead a n excepti on i n t o t h e st atute f or general l y ap pl i cabl e l aw s t h at i n ci den t al l y bu rden reli giou s con d u ct. In co n c lu s io n , w e h o ld th a t t h e E u le s s o r d i n a n c e s a t is s u e s u b s ta n tia lly bur de n M e r c e d’ s f

ree exe r c i s e o f

r e l i gi o n. W e m o ve ne xtt o c o ns i de rt he govern m en t ali n t erest s E u l ess ad van ces i n t h ei r defen se. C
. Compel l i ng G overnm entalI n t ere st T R F R Apl aces on t h e governm en tt h e bu rden of provi n g t h at the bu rden i tc r e at e d b o t h a dv anc e s a c o m pe l l i ng i nt e r e s ta nd i s t he l e as tr e s t r i c t i ve m e ans o f d o in gs o . T e x . C iv . P r a c . & R e m . C o d e § 1 1 0 .0 0 3 (b ); B arr , 2009 W L 1712798
a t *1 4
. F ed era l d ecisi on s i n terp retingthe F ree E xe rcise C l a u se a re re l ev a n t t oN o. 08- 10358

20 th i s i n q u i ry . I

d. § 1 10
. 00 1(b)
. The s e c as e s ha ve de s c r ibe d a c o m pe l l i ng go ve rn m en tal i n teres t us i n g p h ra ses su ch as “of t h e h i gh est ord er,” L u k u mi , 508 U
. S
. at 54 6 , an d “pa ra m ou n t, ” Y od er , 406 U
. S. at213. B arrcit e s w ith a p p r o v a l th e U n ite d S ta te s S u p r e m e C o u r t’s o p in io n in G o nz ale s v . O Ce nt r o Es pi r i t a Be nef

i c i e nt e Uni ao do Vege t al , 546 U
. S
. 418 ( 20 06 ) , e qua t i ng t he c o m pe l l i ng s t at e i nt e r e s tr e qui r e m e nt s o f RFR A and TR FR A. 20 09 W L 17 12 79 8 at* 13
. I n O Centr o , t h e Su prem e C ou rti n t erpret ed R F R At o requi re “ t h e G overnm en tt o dem on st rat e tha tthe com pel l i n g i n t erest t e s ti s s at i s f

i e d t hr o ugh a ppl i c at i o n of the c hal l e nge d l aw ‘ t o t he pe r s o n’

— t he p a r ti cu l a r cl a i m a n t w h ose si n cere ex ercise of rel i gion i s be i n g su b stan tia lly burde ned. ” 546 U
. S. at430–31
. The go ver nm entc annotr el y upon ge ner al statem en ts of i ts i n teres ts, bu t m u st tail or t h em to the sp ecif i c i ssu e a t ha n d : “I n [ S h er b er t and Y

od er], this C ou rt l oo k ed be yo n d bro a d l y for m u la te d i n teres ts j us t i f yi ng t he g e ne r ala ppl i c ab i l i t y o f go ve r nm e ntm and at e s and s c r ut i ni z e d t he
a s s e r te d h a r m o f g r a n tin gs p e c ific e x e m p tio n s to p a r tic u la rre lig io u s cla im a n ts .” I d. a t 4 3 1
. T h e co u r ts ’ta s k o f b a la n c in gth e in te r e s ts is d iffic u lt, b u t th e g o a l is t o “ st ri ke s en sibl e balances, pu rsuan t t o a com pel l i n g i n t erestt estt h at r equ i res th e G ov ern m en t t o a d d ress the pa rti cu l a r p ra cti ce a t i ssu e.” I d. at439. B arr i s pa r t i c ul ar l y i ns t r uc t i ve . The r e , t he Ci t y o f Si nt o n a dv anc e d t he i n teres ts of “safety, pre ve n ti n g n u i sa n ce, a n d p rotecting ch i l d ren ” t o j u sti fy i ts
e xc l us i o n o f

Bar r ’ s r e l i gi o us ha l f w ay ho us e . 2 00 9 W L 17 12 79 8 at* 14
. The T ex a s S u p rem e C ou rt’ s n ex t sen ten ce i s rev ea l i n g: “B u t th ere i s n o ev i d en ce to suppor tt he C i t y’ s as se r t i on w i t h re spe c tt o ‘ t he par ti cu l a r p r ac t i c e a t i ssu e’

— B a rr’ s m i n i stry.” I d. W h i l e not r e q u iring the ci t y t o w ai tf or di st urbanc es bef

or e t aki ng pr eve nt i ve m eas ure s, t he c our tr equi r ed m or e t han gen eralpl ati t u des t o j u st i f y t h e pract i calex cl u si on of a rel i gi ou s m i n i st ry f rom t he c i t y l i m i t s. Thu s, f orE ul es s t o pr evai l , i tm usts how by spe c i f i c evi denc e t hat M erced’ s r el i gi ou s pract i ces j eopa rdi ze i t s s t ated i n t erest s. T h i s i tcann otdo.N o. 08- 10358

21 The t w o i nt e r e s t s Eul e s s c l ai m s a re com pe l l i ng ar e pub l i c he al t h a nd
an i m altreat m en t , the em ph asi s being on the f orm er. B u tt h e parti es s t i pu l ated t o, an d the di st ri ctcourtf ou n d, t h e f

ol l ow i n g fact s: 25
. D e fe nda nt has no e vi de nc e t hata ny o f t he Pl ai nt i f

f ’ s r e l i gi o us pr ac t i c e s i n h i s h om e , i nc l udi ng t he ki l l i ng o f g o at s , s he e p, andt ur t l e s , ha s a dv e r s e l y af fe c t e d t he he al t h o f

a ny pe r s o n. 26
. D e fe nda nt has no e vi de nc e t hata ny o f t he Pl ai nt i f

f ’ s r e l i gi o us pr ac t i c e s i n hi s ho m e , i nc l udi ng t h e k i l l i ng o f g o at s , s he e p, andt ur t l e s , ha s a dv e r s e l y af fe c t e d t he s af

e t y o f a ny pe r s o n. 2 7
. D e fe n d a n t h a s n o e v id e n c e th a t t h e P la in tiff e v e rd is p o s e d in an il l egal m an n er of

the rem ai n s ( dea d an i m al s or t h ei r part s) of an y an i m alsacr i f

i ce i n hi s hom e. 2 8
. D e fe n d a n t h a s n o e v id e n c e th a t t h e P la in tiff e v e rd is p o s e d in a n u n s a n ita r ym a n n e ro f th e r e m a in s ( d e a d a n im a ls o rth e ir pa rt s) of

an y an i m alsacr i f

i ce i n hi s hom e. 29
. D e fe nda ntha s no e vi de nc e t hatt he Pl ai nt i f f e ve rke pta ny goat s, s heep, orot herani m al s on hi s pre m i se s f orl ongert han f ou r hou rs. 30
. D e fe nda ntha s no e vi de n ce t hatt he Pl ai nt i f f e ve rke pta ny goats, sheep , or ot h er ani m al s on h i s prem i ses in a m an n er th a t b e fo r e th e k illin gca u s e d a n yinju r yto a n ya n im a l. 31
. D e fe nda nt has no e vi de nc e t hat t he Pl ai nt i f f e ve r c aus e d a ny a n im a l on his prem i ses t o suf fer any cr u el t y or harm , ot h er th a n th e k illin go f th e a n im a l. 32
. D e fe nda ntha s no e vi de nc e t hatt he Pl ai nt i f f e ve rke pta ny goat s, s heep, orot herani m al s on hi s prem i ses i n an u n san i t ary m an n er. 33
. D e fe nda ntha s no e vi de nce t hatt he Pl ai nt i f f e ve rke pta ny goats, sheep , or ot h er an i m al s on h i s prem i ses in a m an n er t h at denied t o an y an i m alsuf f i ci en tf ood an d w ater
. 34
. D e fe nda nt has no e vi de nc e t hata ny o f t he Pl ai nt i f

f ’ s r e l i gi o us pr ac t i c e s i n hi s hom e ca us e d a ny ani m alg r e at e rs uf fe r i ng th a n is n o r m a l in th e le g a l, co m m e r c ia l s la u g h te ro f a n im a ls for m ea t. I n addi t i on, t he c i t y’ s m ana ge r adm i t t ed t hatki l l i ng l i ves t oc k w oul d s t i l lbe i l l egal i n E u l ess even i f i tdi d n otpresent a healt h ha zard, t h ou gh he consi dered it “b e y o n d s p e c u la tio n ” t h a t t h e s e k illin g s p r e s e n te d ju s t s u c h a r is k
. B u t itisN o. 08- 10358

Wereiterate thatt hedepositionsummary of an Euless witness to th e co ntrary is 17 irrel evantinli ght of the agreed facts approved b y the district court. O ne o f E ul e s s ’ sexp e rt so p in e dth atif th ek e e p in gan dkillin gof s eve r aldoz en 18 ani mals was “allowed allover thecity, it would certainly lower thebar of public health.” The only evidence of num be r s , h ow ev er, i s that th ere are five Santeria priests in Euless. Th e danger of allowin g them to sacrifice four-le gged animals b ecau s e everyoneinE ule ss will do it appears, like th e re port of Mark Twain’ s death, gre atlyexaggerate d.

See Barr , 20 09 WL 171 279 8 at *1 4 (notin g that Sintonfailed to cite a single studyor 19 experience with halfway hou ses to ju stifyi t s b ano n them). Here, Euless do es not cite any stu di eso r experi ence s withth e Santeri ar eligio ninsupp ort of itso rdin ance s. 22 u n di spu t ed that M erced c on du ct ed an i m alsacr i f i ces f or si xteen years i n E u l ess w i th ou t i n ci d en t. In t h ei r briefs, t h e parti es dw el lat l en gth on t h e hea l t h i m pl i cat i on s of
c ar c as s di s po s alev e n t ho ugh , as not e d ab o ve , t he di s po s alor di nanc e i s no to ne t h at prevents M erced’ s act i vi t i es. A n d th e c ity adm i t s, based on t h ese unc hal l e nge d f

i ndi ngs , t hatM e r c e d’ s m e t ho d o f di s po s al

— pl ac i ng t he r e m ai ns i n du m pt e r s o rt r as h c ans a f t e rdo ubl e - bag gi ng t he m — i s b o t h l awf ula nd 17
sa n i tary
. E ve n i n cl u d i n g d i sp osa lw i th i n the k en of a c tiv itie s releva n t t o Eul e s s ’ s s t at e d i nt e r e s t s , t he a bo ve f i ndi ngs e vi s c e r a t e a n yp o s s ibi l i t y o f m e e t i ng B arr’ s par t i c ul ar i t y r equi r em ent
. Th e c i t y has abs ol ut el y no evi den ce t hat Merc ed’ s r e lig io u s co n d u c t u n d e r m in e d a n yo f its in te r e s ts
. E u le s s ’ s e x p e r ts d id t est i f y t h at t h e ci t y’ s i n t erest s w ou l d be h arm ed byact i vi t i es l i ke those M erced p erform s, bu t t h i s ge n era ltesti m on y d oe s n ot viti a te the sti p u l a ted fa cts

18
r e s p e c tin gM e r c e d ’ s p r a c tic e , a n d th e g o v e r n m e n t b e a r s th e b u r d e n a t t h is 19
s ta g e to p r o v e its in te r e s ts a r e h a r m e d
. Cf
. O Centr o , 546 U
. S. at428–29 ( upho l di ng unde rRFR A t he i s s uanc e o f a pr e l i m i n ar y i nj unc t i o n when t he
e vi de nc e e qua l l y s upp o r t e d ha r m t o t he pl ai nt i f f ’ s r e l i gi o us pr ac t i c e a nd t o t he g o v e rn m e n t’ s a ss e rte d in te re sts w h e n th e g o v e rn m e n t b o re th e b u rd e n of p ro o f). A g a in , w e a r e n o t c o n c e r n e d w ith k e e p in g , k illin g , a n d d is p o s in go f a n im a ls in t he abs t r ac t , butw i t h bal anci ng t he go ver nm ent ’ s i nt er es t s w i t h t he par t i c ul arN o. 08- 10358

Merced also points to variou s exceptio ns to Euless’s killingban, includin g the killing 20 of fowl an d vermi n, w hi c h likewise weaken the city’s interests. Eve n thou ghth e city’ s man a gera dm itte d th at killin gof fo ur- le ggedanim alsi s notanevilinits elf, see 7 U.S .C. § 1 902 (b) (de scribingth e sl aughtertechniqu e used byMerce d, severin g the carotid arteries with a sh arp instru ment, as human e), it i s still prohibite d. 23 practi ce ati ssue. M erced has perf orm ed these sacrifi ces f or s i xteen years
w i t h ou tcr eati n g h eal t h ha zards or un du l y h arm i n g an y an i m al s. E u l ess a rg u es th a t O Centr o s t and s f o rt he pr o po s i t i o n t hatt he g o v e r n m e n t c a n n o t r e fu s e to e x e m p t o n e k in d o f r e lig io u s co n d u c t w h e n it al ready exem pts a si m i l ar ki n d of rel i gi ou s c on du ct ; t h at i s, i tcann ot di sc r i m i nat e b et w ee n si m i l arpr ac t i c es . W e no t e s eve r alex c epti ons t hat
u n derm i n e E u l ess’ s pu bl i c heal t h i n t ere st regard i n g t h e consum pti on of
u n i n spect ed m eat and di sposalof carc ases. Fir st , T ex a s la w ex em pts f rom i nspec t i on r equi r em ent s t he sl aught eran d c ons um pt i on o f m eatf ort he per so nal
u se of th e l i ve stock ’ s ow n er, h i s fam i l y, a n d h i s n on -pa yin g gu ests. T ex . H ea l th & S a fe ty C o d e § 4 3 3 .0 0 6 (a ). A ls o , E u le s s p e r m its h u n te r s t o b r in gd e a d a n im a ls i n t o t h e ci t y, bu t cher an d consu m e t h em , an d d i spose of the u n w an t ed p ort i on s. S u c h e x c e p t io n s w e a k e n E u le s s ’ s a s s e r te d in te r e s ts
. S e e L u k u mi , 508 U
. S. at 546 –47 ( “ W h ere governm en tres t ri ct s onl y cond u ctprot ect ed by t h e F i rst A m en dm e n t a n d fai l s t o ena ctf easibl e m easu res t o res t ri ctot h er c on du ct produ ci n g sub st an t i alh arm or al l eged h arm of t h e sam e sor t , t h e i n t erestgi ven in j u stifica tion of th e re str iction is n o t co m p e ll in g .”)
. 20 T h e ci t y den i es t h at t h ese and ot h er except i on s fal li n t o t h e sam e cat egory as a l l o w i ng a c i t i z e n t o b r i e f l y ke e p and ki l ldoz e ns of ani m al s a to ne t i m e . But t he di f f e r e nc e i s o ne o f

de gr e e a nd n o to ne o f ki nd. The ke e pi ng, s l aug ht e r , a nd di sposalof

a sm al lnu m ber of f

ow l on a regu l ar basi s, w h i ch E u l ess perm i t s, over t i m e ha s t h e sam e corr osive ef fect on t h e ci t y’ s i n t erest s as i n f requ en tsacr i f

i cesN o. 08- 10358

Merce d testified that h e h as typicallype rf or m ed sacrific es of four-l egge d animal s 21 about oncea ye ar. 24 o f a la r g e rn u m b e ro f a n im a ls
. T h e cit y ’ s e x p e r ts d id n o t e x p la in a n yp u b lic 21 he al t h r at i o nal e b e hi nd t he di f fe r i ng t r e at m e nt s a f

f o r de d d i f

f e r e n ta ni m al s . The
o r di nanc e s a l l o w t he ki l l i ng o f s e ve r all ar ge f

o w l , l i ke t ur ke ys , b utf o r bi d t he ki l l i ng of

ev en a s i ngl e g oat
. Al so , a hunt erc oul d pr es u m a b l y br i ng hom e a s m an y deer as he could l egall y shoot an d butcher t h em w i t h ou trun n i n g af ou lof
an y ordi n an ce. T h e b a l a n c i n g o f in te r e s ts is d iffic u lt. T o ca r r yits b u r d e n o f p r o o f, a gov er nm ent ’ s as se r t ed i nt er es tm ustbe par t i c ul ar l y di r ec t ed t o t he c onductat i s s ue . I n ans w e r i ng t hi s l e ga l que s t i o n, w e a r e pe r s uad e d t hat , o n t hi s r e c o r d, t h e sc al es t i p i n favor of M erced. T h u s, w e h ol d that E u l ess h as fai l ed to assert
a com pel l i n g govern m en t ali n t erestin sup port of i t s or di n an ces t h at burden M erce d ’ s reli giou s con d u ct. D
. Le as tRes t r i c t i v e Me ans E ven i f E u l ess m arsha l ed a com pel l i n g govern m en t ali n t eresti n i t s favor, i tm ustal so pr ove t hati t s c hos en r egul at or y m et hod i s t he l eas tr es t r i c t i ve m eans of

f urt her i ng t hati nt er es t
. Eu l es s doe s notex pend m uch e f f or ton t hat
s c o r e , a r gui ng t hati td oes n ot tot al l y ba n t he ki l l i ng o f a l la ni m al s , a nd t hus i m pl em en t s a l ess rest ri ct i ve al t erna t i ve. B u ti tdoes enti rel y ban t h e ki l l i n g of go at s , s he e p, a nd t ur t l e s , w hi c h i s nec e s s ar y t o i ni t i at e a Sant e r i a pr i e s t
. A nd T R F R Arequi res t h e lea st restrictive m ea n s, n ot m ere l y le s s t h a n a co m p l ete b a n . S ee T e x . C iv . P r a c . & R e m . C o d e § 1 1 0 .0 0 3 (b )(2 ); cf
. Uni t e d S t at e s v. P layboy E n t m ’

tG roup , I

n c. , 5 2 9 U. S. 8 0 3 , 8 1 3 ( 2 0 0 0 ) ( “ I f a l e s s r e s t r i c t i ve al t er nat i ve w oul d s er ve t he G ove r nm ent ’ s purpos e, t he l egi s l a t ur e m ustuse t hat
a lter n a tiv e .”)
. M erce d pr op ose s n o few er th a n thre e less restrict i ve altern a tive s to E u le s s ’ s cu r r e n t s c h e m e . F o rp u r p o s e s o f illu s tr a tio n , o n e w ill d o . E u le s s co u ldN o. 08- 10358

B ecau se we do not reach Merced’s constitutional clai ms, we do not discuss attorney 22 fe esinr el ationto th em . 25 c r e at e a pe r m i ts ys t e m w he r e by S an t e r i a ad he r e nt s c o m pl y w i t h c o ndi t i o ns d e s ig n ed to safeg u a rdthe cit y ’ s in te r e s ts (e .g ., r e a s o n a b le lim ita tio n s o n th e tim e t h e an i m al s c an be kep t bef ore t h e kil l i n gs) an d i n ret u rn are al l ow ed to sacri f i ce a n im a ls a s d ic t a t e d b yth e ir r e li g io n . E u le s s d o e s n o tr e b u t a n yo f M e r c e d ’s al t er nat i ves ; i tdoes n otev en t r y. Thu s, as an al t er nat i ve t o o ur ho l di ng t hat E u l ess fai l ed to i den t i f y a com pel l i n g i n t erest , w e hol d that t h e E u l ess ordi n a n ces t h at burden M erced’ s r el i gi ou s f ree exerc i se are n ott h e l east rest ri ct i ve m ean s of

adv an ci n g t h e ci t y’ s i n t erest s. E
. A t t orney F

ees E u l ess m oved i n t h e di st ri ctcourtf or an aw ard u n der 42 U
. S
. C
. § 1988 of i t s at t orney fees i n curred i n d efen di n g t h i s acti on . S ect i on 198 8 al l ow s di st ri ct
c o ur t s , i n t he i rdi s c r e t i o n, t o a w ar d f e e s t o t he pr e va i l i ng pa r t y f o ra c t i o ns b ro u g h t u n d e r, a m o n go th e rs , 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 , R L U IP A , a n d R F R A
. § 1 9 8 8 (b ). W hi l e pr e va i l i ng pl ai nt i f f ’ s a r e us ual l y e nt i t l e d t o s uc h f e e s , “ pr e va i l i ng d e fe n d a n t s c a n n o tr e c o v e r§ 1 9 8 8 fe e s w it h o u td e m o n s t r a t in gth a tth e p la in t if f’s
u n d erlying cl a i m w a s frivo l ou s, u n rea son a b l e or gr ou n d l ess . ” H i dde n Oaks Lt d.
v . C ity of A u stin , 138 F
. 3d 103 6, 105 3 ( 5th C i r. 199 8)
. W e revi ew t h e di st ri ct
c o u r t’s d e c is io n fo ra b u s e o f d is c r e tio n . I d. at1052. A s is p la in fr o m o u rre s o lu tio n o f th e m e r its , M e r c e d ’ s ca s e is n o t o n ly
n on -f ri vo l ou s, i t i s m eritori ou s an d pr ev a i lin g . B eca u se E u l ess i s n ot a preva i l i n g pa rt y on t h e T R F R Acl ai m , i ti s not en t i t l e d to a tto rn ey fees un der § 1 98 8. The di s t r i c tc o ur tg r ant e d Eul e s s ’ s m o t i o n f o rs um m ar y j u dg m e nt 22
r egar di ng M er c ed’ s R LU I PA c l ai m , butt hat fact a l on e do es notm ean i tw as fr iv o lo u s , i d. a t105 3, an d E u l ess of fers n o add i t i on alreasons t o deem i tso. T h u s , w e h o ld th e d is t r ic tc o u r td id n o ta b u s e i t s d is c r e t io n in d e n y in gE u le s s ’s
r eques t
. M er c ed di d n otreque statt or ney fee s as al l ow ed byTR FR A , Tex. C i v.N o. 08- 10358

26 Pr ac . & Rem
. Cod e § 1 10
. 00 5( a) ( 4) , o r§ 1 98 8 i n t he di s t r i c tc o ur tno rha s he
r eques t ed t hem on appe al
. Acc or di ngl y, w e do notaw ar d any. I I I . C ONC L US I ON B ec ause w e c oncl u d e t hatM er c ed i s ent i t l ed underTR FR At o a n inju n c tio n p r e v e n tin gE u le s s fr o m e n fo r c in gits o r d in a n c e s th a t b u r d e n h is
r e l i g i o u s p r a c tic e o f s a c r ific in ga n im a ls , see Tex
. Ci v. Pr ac . & Rem
. Cod e § 1 1 0
. 0 0 5 (a)( 2 ), w e d o n ot rea ch h i s cl a i m s u n d er th e F i rst an d F ou rteen th A m e n d m e n t s . F o rth e fo r e g o in gr e a s o n s , w e R E V E R S E th e d is t r ic tc o u r t ’s ju d g m e n tr e s p e c t in gM e r c e d ’s T R F R Ac la im , w e A F F I R M th e d is t r ic tc o u r t ’s deni al of at t or ney fee s, and R E M A N D f or f urt her pro c ee di ngs c ons i st en t w i th t hi s o pi ni o n.