Supreme Court Case
A Brief History of the Events Leading to Litigation
On May 21, 1999, U.S. Customs agents entered the UDV national headquarters in Santa Fe, New Mexico, seizing church records, computers and all of the sacramental hoasca tea stored there. On November 22, 2000, after 18 months of unsuccessful efforts to negotiate a settlement with the government aimed at accommodating the UDV's religious practice, the UDV had no recourse but to file a lawsuit in federal court against the Drug Enforcement Administration, the U.S. Customs Service, and the United States Department of Justice for violations of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and numerous treaty obligations.
The UDV primarily sought relief under The Religious Freedom Restoration Act Of 1993 (RFRA). Citing the nation's history and founding principles of religious liberty, Congress passed RFRA almost unanimously. It requires that the government not interfere with religious conduct unless it can demonstrate to a court that it has a "compelling interest" in doing so, and then that the government is using the "least restrictive means" of accomplishing its objectives (as applied to the religious adherents). If it is unable to do so, RFRA requires the government to allow people to practice their religion.
The Justice Department Response
In response to the UDV lawsuit, the U.S. government claimed that it had a compelling interest in suppressing the use of controlled substances and that its interest could only be effectively served by a complete ban on their use, including the UDV's religious use of hoasca. The government defendants argued that the church's sacramental hoasca tea contains dimethyltriptamine (DMT), a substance, when synthesized and injected or smoked, is considered to have a potential for abuse and is on the government's list of controlled (or prohibited) substances. The government has not explained why it has accommodated The Native American Church's use of peyote (which contains mescaline, also a controlled substance) but could not accommodate the UDV's use of hoasca. The United States Constitution, which guarantees the free exercise of religion, also guarantees equal protection under the Law.
To justify its prohibition of the UDV religion, the government claimed that the use of hoasca within the religious ceremony constitutes a threat to the UDV's own members. The UDV's lawyers rebutted the government's allegations as unproven speculations, contrary to decades of empirical evidence, and all of the established medical and scientific research to date.
Evidence presented in Court demonstrated that the quantity of naturally occurring DMT, the alkaloid present within the sacramental hoasca tea, is extremely small and that the same naturally occurring DMT is also present within many plants that grow in the United States, and even within the healthy human brain.
The Controlled Substances Act lists and criminalizes the use of substances with the potential for abuse, while providing exemptions for medical and scientific uses that Congress considers legitimate. The law also provides for an exemption for the sacramental use of peyote in "bona fide religious ceremonies of the Native American Church", a practice in many ways analogous to the UDV's use of the hoasca tea.
The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in this case that "Uniao do Vegetal's use of hoasca occurs in a 'traditional, precisely circumscribed ritual' where the drug 'itself is an object of worship' and using the sacrament outside the religious context is a sacrilege." In doing so it compared the use of hoasca within the UDV with the authorized religious use of peyote in the Native American Church.
In another attempt to justify their position, the government defendants argued that The 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances (a treaty intended to control the international movement of narcotics and dangerous drugs) prohibited them from accommodating the UDV's religious use of its sacramental tea. However, evidence and testimony presented in court demonstrated that the treaty does not restrict or control plants, or decoctions made from plants that are "traditionally used by certain small, clearly defined groups in magical or religious rites." Even if the Convention did cover hoasca tea, a treaty obligation could not legally justify the denial of a fundamental constitutional right or the violation of U.S. law.
Court Decisions
The UDV sued the Department of Justice, the DEA, and the U.S. Customs Service, to enjoin them from interfering with the UDV members' practice of their religion. The Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico, James Parker, took evidence in the UDV's lawsuit for two-weeks, between October 22 and November 2, 2001. On August 12, 2002, after eleven months of reviewing thousands of pages of evidence, testimony, and expert reports, Judge Parker concluded that the government defendants' prohibition of the UDV's religious practice was unjustifiable under domestic law because the government had failed to show that it had any compelling interest in forbidding the UDV's use of its sacramental tea. He granted a Preliminary Injunction enjoining the Justice Department, the U.S. Customs Service and the DEA from further interfering with this small church's religious liberty and basic civil rights.
Judge Parker's opinion declared:
"In this case, the Court has concluded that the Government has failed to carry its heavy burden of showing a compelling government interest in protecting the health of UDV members using hoasca, or in preventing the diversion of hoasca to illicit use. In addition the Government has not demonstrated that prohibiting the UDV's ceremonial use of hoasca furthers an interest in adhering to the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances because the treaty does not appear to extend to hoasca."
The Justice Department appealed Judge Parker's Decision to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals (which reviews federal cases in New Mexico, Colorado, Oklahoma, Utah, Kansas, and Wyoming, and portions of the Yellowstone National Park extending into Montana and Idaho). Over a two-year period, that court granted the government two separate opportunities to explain why Judge Parker's judgment was wrong. In both instances (on September 4, 2003, and on November 12, 2004) the Appeals Court found Judge Parker's decision to be correct.
On February 10, 2005, the government defendants appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. This action was apparently rooted in the defendant's unwillingness to fully accept Congress's passage of RFRA and the thoroughness and correctness of the three lower court decisions, all of which found that the UDV members had the right to practice their religion without government interference.
On April 18, 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case of Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal in the upcoming fall session. On February 21st, 2006 the United States Supreme Court of the United States issued an unanimous decision affirming Religious Liberty in the case.
Findings and Filings
Published Decision of the United States Supreme Court
Transcript of the Oral Argument Before the Supreme Court
Full 10th Circuit “en banc” Opinion
Supreme Court Filings
"The UDV Respondents' Brief to the United States Supreme Court"
"The UDV Brief in Opposition to Granting Certiorari"
"The UDV Motion to Strike Improper Portions of the Government's Brief"
"The UDV's Reply Brief in Support of its Motion to Strike"
Amicus Curiae Filings
In support of the UDV's case before the United States Supreme Court, nine different amicus curiae (friend of the court) legal briefs were submitted by a number of individuals and organizations, each addressing different aspects of this important legal case.
A brief submitted on behalf of a coalition of religious and civil liberties organizations including The National Association of Evangelicals, The National Council of Presbyterian Churches, The Baptist Joint Committee, The American Civil Liberties Union, and The Foundation for the Free Exercise of Religion. The brief argues that this case was correctly decided by the District Court whose decision should be affirmed by the Supreme Court on appeal.
A brief submitted by The Conference of Catholic Bishops asking the Supreme Court to use its authority to affirm the constitutional guarantee of the free exercise of religion in the UDV case.
A brief submitted by The Becket Foundation for Religious Liberty representing itself, The American Jewish Committee, The American Jewish Congress, The Association on American Indian Affairs, and The Unitarian Universalist Association, and others, asking the Supreme Court to reject any arguments made by another group of amici, questioning the constitutionality of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
A brief submitted by The International Academy for Freedom of Religion and Belief in support of the UDV's position, educating the court with respect to the important international law and treaty issues raised by government in this case on appeal.
A brief submitted by The Liberty Legal Institute in support of the UDV also addressing the responsibilities of the United States Government under the treaties and international law issues raised in this case.
A brief submitted on behalf of a group of scientists and public policy experts in support of the UDV, arguing that they have reviewed the medical evidence presented in the case and concluded that the record overwhelmingly supports the district court's findings.
A brief submitted on behalf of the Council on Spiritual Practices and a group of distinguished professors in the area of world religion in support of the UDV. The brief was written to educate the court with respect to the venerable history of plant sacraments (like the UDV's hoasca) over centuries of human religious history.
A brief submitted by a group of research scientists and public policy experts arguing that the Controlled Substance Act and the international drug treaties do not apply to the UDV's religious use of its plant sacrament.
A brief submitted by Professor Douglas Laycock, former advisor to Congress on issues of religious freedom, in support of the district court's decision in favor of the UDV. Prof. Laycock's brief argues that the district court was correct to grant the UDV's request for a preliminary injunction under RFRA.