The government must show that it is using the "least restrictive means" to achieve its goal.
Therefore, the court said, Section 505 was not the "least restrictive means" to achieve the government's goal, and was unconstitutional.
This time, the appeals court ruled that the law did not meet the First Amendment's "least restrictive means" test.
This is especially true for the "least restrictive means" clause, which Sanders said sets "an unusually high justification" for the government if it is challenged on religious grounds.
Although disclosure requirements are often "the least restrictive means" of regulating campaign finance practices, "in some instances disclosure may even expose contributors to harassment or retaliation".
Any federal government actions that "substantially burden a person's exercise of religion," it says, must advance a compelling interest and be the least restrictive means of doing so.
The Supreme Court has ruled that "discrimination on the basis of alienage must advance a compelling State interest by the least restrictive means available".
Any such action must serve a "compelling government interest" while also being "the least restrictive means" of furthering that interest, the law says.
In 1993, Congress required government actions that "substantially burden a person's exercise of religion" to advance a compelling interest by the least restrictive means.
Under the 1993 federal law, the government is prohibited from imposing a substantial burden on religious exercise, unless it demonstrates a compelling interest and employs the "least restrictive means" of furthering that interest.
Judge Robert M. Takasugi, in a three-page injunction, wrote that the government had "not established that the exclusion of all noncitizens is the least restrictive means to further the governmental interest in improving aviation security".
