As the D.C. Circuit has observed, “RFRA’s judicial relief provision is couched in broad terms: ‘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. ’ ” Webman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 441 F.3d 1022, 1024 (D.C.Cir.2006) (emphasis in original) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1(c)). See 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-2(1) (providing that “the term ‘government’ includes a branch, department, agency, instrumentality, and official (or other person acting under color of law) of the United States”). The Act itself does not provide a damages remedy or waive the government’s sovereign immunity with respect to a claim for damages. Webman, 441 F.3d at 1025-26 (<HOLDING>). Nonetheless, as noted, it does specifically
holding that the ada does not contain a waiver of sovereign immunity and thus does not apply to the federal government holding that the alien tort statute itself is not a waiver of sovereign immunity holding that the tucker acts waiver of sovereign immunity for contract claims does not extend to claims for contracts implied in law holding that the waiver of sovereign immunity must be clear and unequivocal holding that rfras waiver of sovereign immunity did not extend to monetary damages the acts reference to appropriate relief was susceptible to more than one interpretation and thus was not an unambiguous waiver of sovereign immunity