Supreme Court boosts religious freedom

By Tom Strode - Feb 28, 2006 -

The Supreme Court recently took a step forward in protecting the free exercise of religion.

The high court ruled unanimously Feb. 21 the U.S. government did not show it had a valid reason for barring a small religious sect from the sacramental use of a tea that contains a substance prohibited by a federal drug law. In so doing, the justices reaffirmed that a 1993 law, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), applies to the federal government, which still must show it has a “compelling interest” before restricting the free exercise of religion.

Alan Sears, president of the Alliance Defense Fund, said the decision, combined with previous opinions, could demonstrate the high court is headed in the right direction on other religious freedom cases, such as those involving the freedom of conscience of physicians, pharmacists and other medical professionals.

The decision “has tremendous potential from a legal standpoint in guaranteeing the rights of Americans to their first liberty, which is religious freedom,” Sears said in a written statement. “We recognize the value in having our nation’s highest court apply the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in a strong but prudent manner to restrain the federal government’s ability to infringe on religious liberties.”

The Supreme Court ruling involved an American branch of what it described as a Brazilian “Christian Spiritist sect.” The group, which numbers about 130 in the United States, uses hoasca, a tea made from two plants found in the Amazon River area, in communion. One of the plants includes a hallucinogen drug banned by the federal government’s Controlled Substances Act (CSA).

When the federal government seized a shipment of the tea and signaled it would prosecute the sect, the religious group sued, claiming the action violated RFRA, which says the government cannot substantially burden free exercise of religion unless it can demonstrate it has a “compelling interest” and is using the “least restrictive means” to further that interest.

“The government’s argument echoes the classic rejoinder of bureaucrats throughout history: If I make an exception for you, I’ll have to make one for everybody, so no exceptions,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court.

Further Learning

Learn more about: Citizenship, Church and State, National, Religious Liberty