High court upholds religious freedom in decision involving small religious group

February 21, 2006
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

WASHINGTON—In a unanimous decision announced today, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the government failed to meet its burden under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) to keep a small religious group from practicing its religion.

The case will now return to the lower court to determine if the church is entitled to permanent relief.

Justices heard oral arguments in November in the 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 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.

In the opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court rejected the government's position that it had a compelling interest in the uniform application of the laws concerning the Controlled Substances Act so that no exception could be made to accommodate the religious practice at issue.

K. Hollyn Hollman, general counsel for the Baptist Joint Committee, said the ruling is good news for religious freedom and the continuing vitality of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

"The Court very clearly upheld the statutory design of RFRA," Hollman said. "The statute allows religion to be accommodated by the courts even where other federal laws would restrict religious practices.

"The Court rejected the government's categorical argument that it had a compelling interest in not allowing exceptions," she said. "To protect religious freedom, RFRA requires a case by case analysis to the facts of the burdened religious practice. The government did not meet its burden."

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 because it contains DMT, a chemical on the list of banned substances.

The BJC filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case that may be found at http://www.bjconline.org/resources/pubs/brief_rfra_gonzalesvudv.pdf.

—30—