Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao Do Vegetal

546 U.S. 418 (2006)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P is a religious sect that receives communion by drinking a sacramental tea, brewed from plants that contain a hallucinogen regulated under the Controlled Substances Act. D concedes that this practice is a sincere exercise of religion. D sought to prohibit P from engaging in the practice, on the ground that the Controlled Substances Act bars all use of the hallucinogen. P sued to block enforcement against it of the ban on the sacramental tea and moved for a preliminary injunction. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 overruled the concept that D that the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment does not prohibit governments from burdening religious practices through generally applicable laws. RFRA prohibits the Federal Government from substantially burdening a person's exercise of religion unless the Government 'demonstrates that application of the burden to the person' represents the least restrictive means of advancing a compelling interest. P got a preliminary injunction which was affirmed on appeal. D claims that it has a compelling interest in the uniform application of the Controlled Substances Act.