This is actually a fun case to read, I was mainly looking for what the dissenting opinion was, since it was 4-1. I think at least one of the points can be appe

This is actually a fun case to read, I was mainly looking for what the dissenting opinion was, since it was 4-1. I think at least one of the points can be appealed in the federal courts, if the US Supreme Court would be down to hear it - so there would be several gambles. > In any event, as held by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Navajo Nation v. U.S. Forest Serv. , 535 F.3d 1058, 1077 (9th Cir. 2008) RLUIPA “applies only to government land-use regulations of private land such as zoning laws not to the government’s management of its own land. Therefore, this point of error is without merit. Not that the government would ever cede control over its own land, I just feel like the current Supreme Court would be more lenient to religious arguments. All the rest of this particular case ignores the religious arguments and focuses on the procedural stuff, which was all done by the book and expected of a state and federal permitting agency, at least compared to arbitrary claims by religious folks. Now on to the dissenting opinion: I gather no real rebuttal, just a partial affirmation to "points I-III" and no comment on the other points. hm. Applauds from me.