the celling policy, thereby raising the specter of a credible equal protection claim brought by non-white prisoners. There is thus an “exact fit” between the potential harm and the challenged state action. Walker v. City of Mesquite, 169 F.3d 973, 982 (5th Cir.1999). Walker argues that the State fails the least restrictive means test because it did not “demonstrate[ ] that it [had] actually considered and rejected the efficacy of less restrictive measures before adopting the challenged practice.” War-soldier, 418 F.3d at 999. Although the government bears the burden of proof to show its practice is the least-restrictive means, it is under no obligation to dream up alternatives that the plaintiff himself has not proposed. See United States v. Wilgus, 638 F.3d 1274, 1289 (10th Cir.2011) (<HOLDING>). Here, Walker has consistently demanded only
holding that a district court must compare and weigh the opposing evidence and it must set aside the verdict if it determines that the verdict is against the clear weight of the evidence recognizing that the court has rejected the notion that the agency must expressly parse or refute on the record each individual argument or piece of evidence offered by the petitioner internal quotation marks omitted holding that it is not holding that in a least restrictive means inquiry the governments burden is twofold it must support its choice of regulation and it must refute the alternative schemes offered by the challenger but it must do both through the evidence presented in the record emphasis added recognizing that this court has rejected the notion that the agency must expressly parse or refute on the record each individual argument or piece of evidence offered by the petitioner internal quotation marks omitted