42 USC 2000bb-1 Free Exercise of Religion Protected:
(a) In general
Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b).
(b) ExceptionGovernment may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person— (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
(c) Judicial relief
A person whose religious exercise has been burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government. Standing to assert a claim or defense under this section shall be governed by the general rules of standing under article III of the Constitution.
How is the word "substantially" to be interpreted. This is ambiguous allowing the color of law to be entirely interpreted by argument. "it is not a substantial burden" to be vaccinated".
Further, in (b) the "Exception" allows the government to "burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person is in (1) furtherance of a compelling governmental interest". Well the plandemic is obviously in the "furtherance of a compelling governmental interest". (2) "is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest." That is ambiguous as well. Who sets the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest"? Why it must be the same entity, the government.
The judicial relief is already mute unless the government blatantly screws up and contradicts itself. Otherwise, this law is made specifically a precept for the advancement of this EAU and its tyranny.