Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal
2006 United States Supreme Court case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (2006), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that, under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, the government had failed to show a compelling interest in prosecuting religious adherents for drinking a sacramental tea containing a Schedule I controlled substance.[1] After the federal government seized its sacramental tea, the União do Vegetal (UDV), the New Mexican branch of a Brazilian church that imbibes ayahuasca in its services, sued, claiming the seizure was illegal, and sought to ensure future importation of the tea for religious use. The church won a preliminary injunction from the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico, which was affirmed on appeal.
Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita 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 Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal et al. |
Docket no. | 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 |
Argument | Oral argument |
Case history | |
Prior | 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 of 1993 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. United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed and remanded. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinion | |
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 of 1993) |
The Supreme Court affirmed. 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.