Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/05pdf/04-1084.pdf
Page Number: 5.0

Cite as:  546 U. S. ____ (2006) 

5 

Syllabus 

yote  exemption  and  the  fact  that  the  very  reason  Congress  enacted 
RFRA was to respond to a decision denying a claimed right to sacra-
mental  use  of  a  controlled  substance.    The  Government  has  not 
shown that granting the UDV an exemption would cause the kind of 
administrative harm recognized as a compelling interest in, e.g., Lee. 
It  cannot  now  compensate  for  its  failure  to  convince  the  District 
Court  as  to  its  health  or  diversion  concerns  with  the  bold  argument 
that  there  can  be  no  RFRA  exceptions  at  all  to  the  Controlled  Sub-
stances Act.  Pp. 13–16. 

3. The Government argues unpersuasively that it has a compelling 
interest  in  complying  with  the  1971  U.  N.  Convention.    While  this 
Court  does  not  agree  with  the  District  Court  that  the  Convention 
does  not  cover  hoasca,  that  does  not  automatically  mean  that  the 
Government has demonstrated a compelling interest in applying the 
Controlled Substances Act, which implements the Convention, to the 
UDV’s  sacramental  use.    At  this  stage,  it  suffices  that  the  Govern-
ment  did  not  submit  any  evidence  addressing  the  international  con-
sequences  of  granting  the  UDV  an  exemption,  but  simply  relied  on 
two  affidavits  by  State  Department  officials  attesting  to  the  general 
(and  undoubted)  importance  of  honoring  international  obligations 
and  maintaining  the  United  States’  leadership  in  the  international 
war  on  drugs.    Under  RFRA,  invocation  of  such  general  interests, 
standing alone, is not enough.  Pp. 16–18. 

389 F. 3d 973, affirmed and remanded. 

ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which all other 
Members joined, except ALITO, J., who took no part in the consideration 
or decision of the case.