High court should enforce religious freedom law

October 27, 2005
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

WASHINGTON—A case to be heard Tuesday before the U.S. Supreme Court could determine whether government is going to honor congressional intent to take religious freedom seriously.

Justices are scheduled to hear oral arguments in a case involving the federal government's attempt to prohibit members of a small religious group from practicing their religion, which requires ingesting tea as a sacrament. The tea, which is used in the context of religious ceremonies, is made from two plants imported from Brazil. Church members believe the practice gives them a heightened spiritual awareness.

Under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), the federal government may not interfere with religious practice unless it demonstrates it has a compelling interest in doing so and is using the least restrictive means of accomplishing its objectives.

"We don't question the government's interest in protecting against drug abuse," said K. Hollyn Hollman, general counsel for the Baptist Joint Committee. "We question whether it can show a compelling interest without taking into account the particular circumstances of the religious claimant.

"It is not enough for the government to say it has an interest in upholding its laws," she said. "RFRA requires it show a compelling interest in applying laws to particular religious conduct."

In 1999, after government officials confiscated the church's records, sacramental tea and computers, the church filed suit under RFRA to stop the government from using the Controlled Substances Act against it. The government argues that it has a compelling interest to ban use of the tea in worship since it contains DMT, a chemical on the list of banned substances, and under the Controlled Substances Act.

In a friend-of-the-court brief filed in the case with other religious and civil liberties organizations, the BJC argues that the government cannot meet its burden of showing a compelling interest merely by contending that the Controlled Substances Act requires uniform enforcement, without any exemptions.

"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 states. "[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."

Hollman said RFRA's role is to address conflicts between federal laws and the free exercise of religion. In the courts below, the government failed to prove that the use of the sacramental tea is hazardous to church members.

"If anyone's religious liberty is denied, everyone's religious liberty is in jeopardy," Hollman said.

—30—