.10Id.at *17 (“It is no more tenable to read the FSM Gospel as proselytizing for supernatural spaghetti than to read Jonathan Swift’s ‘Modest Proposal’ as advocating cannibalism.”)11SeeVisconti, Nadel, and Trachman,Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Hobby Lobby, Opens Door to Religious Objections to Statutes Covering Employers, Littler Insight (July 7, 2014).1242 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1(a).13See42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(j) (accommodation not required if it would cause an “undue hardship on the conduct of the employer's business.”);see also TWA v. Hardison, 432 U.S. 63, 74 (1977) (“The intent and effect of this definition was to make it an unlawful employment practice under § 703(a)(1) for an employer not to make reasonable accommodations, short of undue hardship, for the religious practices of his employees and prospective employees.”)

[n]o government shall impose a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person residing in or confined to an institution . . . even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, unless the government demonstrates that imposition of the burden on that person— (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest. 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1(a). A “‘religious exercise’ includes any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.”

In addition the Court emphasized, the “vast majority” of other states and the federal government permit inmates to grow at least a half-inch beards.This ruling, which was based on the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RILUPA) 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1(a), was not a constitutional decision. Instead it was based on Congress’ direction that a prisoner’s sincere claim to practice religion can only be burdened when the prison has a compelling state interest in a rule that restricts the prisoner’s religious practice and when the prison rule burdening religion is the least restrictive means of advancing its interest.

Remember the scene in Home Alone where Kevin McCallister (Macaulay Culkin) shaves for the first time, applies aftershave, and then screams in pain from the sting of the alcohol touching his skin (watch it here)? Local governments may similarly feel the burn after reading the Supreme Court’s decision in Holt v. Hobbs, decided on January 20, which considered the portion of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) that governs religious exercise by institutionalized persons (Section 3, 42 USC § 2000cc–1). Although the case does not discuss the land use provisions of RLUIPA, the Court’s interpretation of the standard applicable to governmental action imposing a substantial burden on religious exercise—whether the government furthered a compelling interest through the least restrictive means—could have a major influence on all RLUIPA substantial burden decisions and make defending land use decisions more difficult for local governments.