Nonetheless, it is sometimes the case that litigants can make no credible showing that the affected practice is either central or important in their religious scheme. See Henderson, 253 F.3d at 17. In such cases, the de minimis burden imposed by the challenged law is not constitutionally cognizable. Id. In other cases, in which the practice at issue is indisputably an important component of the litigants’ religious scheme, see, e.g., City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. at 531, 113 S.Ct. at 2225-26 (noting that petitioners’ assertion that anima 109 S.Ct. 2136, 2148-49, 104 L.Ed.2d 766 (1989)). Nor is it a matter of adjudicating intrafaith differences in practice or belief. See Thomas v. Review Bd. of the Ind. Employment Sec. Div., 450 U.S. 707, 716, 101 S.Ct. 1425, 1431, 67 L.Ed.2d 624 (1981) (<HOLDING>). Instead, a court may determine whether the
holding insurer not liable for bad faith when it denied insureds claim based on a good faith dispute regarding the interpretation of a rule holding that imposition of punishment is a judicial function recognizing judicial immunity for acts committed within their judicial jurisdiction holding that trial courts have the power to sanction parties for bad faith abuse of the judicial process not covered by rule or statute holding that it is not within the judicial function and judicial competence to inquire whether the petitioner or another member of his faith more correctly perceived the commands of their common faith because courts are not arbiters of scriptural interpretation