ON DOCKET: RELIGIOUS FREEDOM VS. DRUG LAWS

The Supreme Court Takes Up a Case Involving a New Mexico Sect That
Could Be Important for Other Minority Religions.

WASHINGTON - In a case with potential important significance for
minority religious groups in America, the US Supreme Court this week
takes up a clash between the nation's drug laws and a statute
protecting religious liberty.

At issue in the case set for oral argument Tuesday is the scope of
the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). The law requires
the federal government to justify any measure that substantially
burdens a person's ability to practice his or her religion.

But what happens when a religious ceremony requires consumption of a
drug outlawed under the Controlled Substances Act? That is the
essence of the dispute in a case called (UDV).

Although the case involves the use of drugs, how the high court
resolves the matter could have an impact on a wide array of religious
groups in the United States that depend on a robust defense of
religious liberty to practice their faith free of government
interference. If the nation's drug laws are found to trump religious
protections, other laws might also be applied in ways that
substantially erode religious freedom, legal analysts say.

On the other hand, if religion may be invoked to easily bypass the
nation's criminal laws, that could greatly complicate and undermine
federal law-enforcement efforts, analysts say.

The case involves a religious sect of 130 members based in New
Mexico. The group, adherents of the Brazil-based religion UDV,
believes the use of sacramental tea in its ceremonies helps them
connect with God. Consumption of the tea is the central ritual act of
their faith. Some analysts liken it to the consecration of wine at a
Roman Catholic mass or serving unleavened bread at a Passover Seder.

The problem is that the tea, made from two sacred plants found in the
Amazon region of Brazil, contains a hallucinogenic substance banned in the US.

When US narcotics agents discovered this, they confiscated the
group's supply of the sacramental tea as an illegal drug and barred
them from importing any more from Brazil. The group sued, claiming
the government was infringing on their religious rights by blocking a
fundamental aspect of their religious worship and threatening to
prosecute them should they continue to use the sacramental tea.

A federal judge and federal appeals court agreed with the group and
issued a preliminary injunction against the government. The court
ordered the government to accommodate the UDV members by allowing
them a religious exemption from the drug laws. The courts ruled that
such actions were necessary under RFRA.

Government's Case

In appealing to the Supreme Court, the Bush administration argues
that the government has a compelling interest in the uniform
enforcement of the nation's drug laws.

Congress determined that a categorical ban on this hallucinogenic
substance was required to help protect the health and safety of
Americans, including the followers of UDV, from detrimental effects,
government lawyers say. "Religious motivation does not change the
science," writes Solicitor General Paul Clement in his brief to the court.

The government also argues that a categorical ban is needed to
prevent diversion of the drug into America's illicit recreational
drug market. And it is necessary to comply with international
treaties banning all trafficking in narcotics and psychotropic substances.

Lawyers for the religious group counter that Congress passed RFRA
after it passed the Controlled Substances Act and that since RFRA
applies to all federal law, it requires the government to make
religious accommodations even from criminal drug laws when individual
accommodations are deemed appropriate after a careful case-by-case review.

For example, Congress has created an exemption for the religious use
of peyote by native Americans, they say.

"The government's successful accommodation of the sacramental use of
peyote, also a [banned] Schedule I substance, belies its claim that
such substances require a categorical ban, even for religious use,"
Nancy Hollander, an Albuquerque lawyer representing the UDV, writes
in her brief.

Ms. Hollander accuses the government of playing fast and loose with
the facts in claiming there are adverse health effects to the group's
use of sacramental tea. She says the only study of sacramental tea
use "found no significant health concerns."

On the potential for diversion for recreational drug use, she says
use of the tea is tightly controlled during ceremonies, and
consumption of the tea outside such ceremonies is considered
sacrilegious. Hollander adds that there hasn't been a US conviction
for attempting to traffic the hallucinogenic substance contained in
the tea in 27 years.

She says the government's argument concerning international treaties
is also flawed. The treaty doesn't apply to sacramental tea, she
says, and other treaties signed by the US require signatory
governments to respect and accommodate religious practices.

Other Groups Weighing In

Although the New Mexico sect has only 130 members, the case has
attracted the attention of a large cross section of religious groups
expressing concern about the case. They include the Baptist Joint
Committee, the National Association of Evangelicals, Agudath Israel
of America, the Minaret of Freedom Institute, the Sikh Coalition, and
The First Church of Christ, Scientist, in Boston, which publishes
this newspaper.

In an appendix to a friend-of-the-court brief supporting the UDV, the
Christian Science Church said in part: "Although The First Church of
Christ, Scientist, supports the legal arguments made in this brief,
neither the church nor the theology of Christian Science supports the
use of drugs or any other material substances as an aid or pathway to
spirituality or a greater understanding of God."