supervision of that staff member. 2. Smudging ceremony Hyde argues that even if the prohibition of smudging advances a compelling state interest, a complete ban on the practice is not the least restrictive means of advancing that interest. In a 1998 grievance, Hyde explained that smudging “is the act of praying. I can not pray without smudging. Many people pray differently....” Inmate Charles Doan, an adherent to Native American religion, testified at the hearing on Hyde’s habeas corpus petition that ninety-eight percent of the time prayer is effectuated by smudging and that group prayer is a general mandate of Native American religion. In other words, prayers without smudging are “technically possible but effectively miserable.” See Whitney v. Brown, 882 F.2d 1068, 1074 (6th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>). In Sample, a federal district court observed
holding ban on newsracks to be contentbased because determining whether a newsrack fell within ban required reference to a publications content holding ban violated the sherman act holding unconstitutional a ban on the passover seder celebration because an individuals solo seder is a very miserable seder holding that an ordinance exempting certain signs from a general sign ban was an unconstitutional contentbased restriction on speech holding that the ban on judicial review of actions committed to agency discretion by law is jurisdictional