WASHINGTON (ABP) — Hearing a case on All Saints' Day, the Supreme Court struggled with the rights of a tiny Christian group whose members believe the road to sainthood is lined with cups of a hallucinogenic tea the federal government considers dangerous.
The justices heard oral arguments Nov. 1 in the case, which involves the New Mexico congregation of the Uniao do Vegetal religion. It is a branch of a Brazilian religion that blends elements of Christianity and native religions. The Santa Fe-based congregation has about 130 members, according to court papers.
In 1999, federal officials attempted to prevent church members from importing hoasca, a tea made from a plant that contains a psychotropic chemical banned under the federal Controlled Substances Act. Uniao do Vegetal adherents drink the tea, which is ritually brewed from local plants and blessed by church members in Brazil before exportation, as part of their worship rituals.
The congregation, known as the O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao Do Vegetal, then sued the government. They claimed that the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) prohibits federal officials from unduly burdening the free exercise of their religion by banning the importation of hoasca.
The government's argument is “fundamentally and structurally incompatible with RFRA,” Nancy Hollander, an Albuquerque attorney arguing on behalf of the church, told the justices. “What the church and its members seek is just the right to practice their religious faith just as Congress promised them in RFRA.”
Congress passed RFRA to reinstate a legal standard for judging government limitations on religious freedom that the high court had tossed out in a 1990 decision, Employment Division vs. Smith. The standard places the burden of proof on government agencies when they desire to curtail a group's or individual's religious freedom.
Under RFRA, the government must prove not only that it has a “compelling interest” in limiting religious freedom, but that it has done so by the “least restrictive means” possible.
Lower federal courts stopped the government from banning the hoasca importation until the case could be tried in the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. But the Supreme Court, in an unusual move, agreed to the Bush administration's request to hear its request to lift the injunction before the case was decided in the Denver-based appeals court. That court has twice refused to lift the order that stopped federal officials from enforcing the law on the church.
Arguing the Bush administration's case Nov. 1, Deputy Solicitor General Edwin Kneedler told the justices that the government has perfectly good reasons, under RFRA, to ban importation of the tea. One is adherence to international treaties banning importation of such hallucinogens.
“We believe that complying with an international convention designed to prevent trafficking of drugs is, in itself, a compelling governmental interest,” Kneedler said, in response to a question from Chief Justice John Roberts.
However, the lower district court found that the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances, to which Kneedler referred, did not apply to hoasca used for religious purposes. Hollander also argued that, even if she conceded the convention does ban hoasca, the treaty also has exceptions for laws, like RFRA, of signatory nations that might trump broad enforcement of the treaty.
Kneedler argued that the government had a compelling interest in uniform enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act by banning hoasca.
But several justices noted that RFRA itself is mainly concerned with allowing exceptions to general rules — pointing out the fact that the government already exempts members of the Native American Church, who use the drug peyote in religious rituals.
“May Congress … make an exception for peyote [but not hoasca]?” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked. “The problem with preferring one religious group over another applies, it seems to me, when one makes an exception for one religious group but not another.”
In front of the court building following the arguments, a large contingent of Uniao do Vegetal members appeared alongside Hollander and other attorneys. Jeffrey Bronfman, president of the congregation, told reporters, “We came before the Supreme Court of the United States today .. asking for the affirmation of a right already enjoyed by millions of other Americans,” he said. “We are hopeful the Supreme Court will use this case to clearly affirm its commitment to religious freedom.”
A wide variety of religious organizations filed friend-of-the-court briefs on behalf of the church's adherents, including one brief spearheaded by the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty and joined by the National Association of Evangelicals and other groups. It said the government's argument that uniform application of the law is a compelling state interest is not, in itself, sufficient to meet the terms of RFRA, which requires a case-by-case analysis of the facts.
“The government must show a compelling interest in prohibiting the importation and use of hoasca in the specific context of the [church's] rituals,” the brief said. “[It] may not simply rely on generalized congressional findings about a controlled substance, but must 'demonstrate,' with real evidence, that the substance poses compelling dangers in the context of sacramental use.”
The case is Gonzales vs. O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao do Vegetal, No. 04-1084. The court is expected to dispose of it before they adjourn next summer.