Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita
| Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente União do Vegetal | |
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued November 1, 2005 Decided February 21, 2006 |
|
| Full case name | Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General, et al., v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal et al. |
| Docket nos. | 04-1084 |
| Citations | 546 U.S. 418 (more)
126 S. Ct. 1211; 163 L. Ed. 2d 1017; 2006 U.S. LEXIS 1815; 74 U.S.L.W. 4119
|
| Prior history | Preliminary injunction granted in part to plaintiffs, O Centro Espirita Beneficente União do Vegetal v. Ashcroft, 282 F. Supp. 2d 1236 (D.N.M. 2002); affirmed, 342 F. 3d 1170 (10th Cir. 2003); affirmed en banc, 389 F. 3d 973 (10th Cir. 2004); cert. granted, sub nom. Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente União do Vegetal, 544 U.S. 973 (2005) |
| Holding | |
| A church was properly granted an injunction under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act against criminal prosecution for its sacramental use of a hallucinatory substance, because the federal government had failed to demonstrate a compelling interest in prohibiting that use under the Controlled Substances Act. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed and remanded. | |
| Court membership | |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Roberts, joined by Stevens, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer |
| Alito took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. | |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. I; 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb (Religious Freedom Restoration Act) | |
Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (2006), is a case decided by the United States Supreme Court involving the federal government's seizure of a sacramental tea, containing a Schedule I substance, from a New Mexican branch of the Brazilian church União do Vegetal (UDV). The church sued, claiming the seizure was illegal, and sought to ensure future importation of the tea for religious use. The United States District Court for New Mexico agreed and issued a preliminary injunction under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb. The Government appealed to the Appeals Court for the Tenth Circuit which upheld the previous ruling, which was then appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments November 1, 2005, and issued its opinion February 21, 2006, finding that the Government failed to meet its burden under RFRA that barring the substance served a compelling government interest. The court also disagreed with the government's central argument that the uniform application of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) does not allow for exceptions for the substance in this case, as Native Americans are given exceptions to use peyote, another Schedule I substance.
...
Wikipedia