Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/05pdf/04-1084.pdf
Page Number: 2

2 

GONZALES v. O CENTRO ESPIRITA BENEFICENTE 
UNIAO DO VEGETAL 
Syllabus 

Controlled Substances Act was the least restrictive means of advanc-
ing  three  compelling  governmental  interests:  protecting  UDV  mem-
bers’  health  and  safety,  preventing  the  diversion  of  hoasca  from  the 
church  to  recreational  users,  and  complying  with  the  1971  United 
Nations Convention on Psychotropic Substances.  The District Court 
granted  relief,  concluding  that,  because  the  parties’  evidence  on 
health  risks  and  diversion  was  equally  balanced,  the  Government 
had  failed  to  demonstrate  a  compelling  interest  justifying  the  sub-
stantial burden on the UDV.  The court also held that the 1971 Con-
vention does not apply to hoasca.  The Tenth Circuit affirmed.   

Held: The courts below did not err in determining that the Government 
failed to demonstrate, at the preliminary injunction stage, a compel-
ling interest in barring the UDV’s sacramental use of hoasca.  Pp. 6– 
19. 

1. This  Court  rejects  the  Government’s  argument  that  evidentiary 
equipoise  as  to  potential  harm  and  diversion  is  an  insufficient  basis 
for  a  preliminary  injunction  against  enforcement  of  the  Controlled 
Substances  Act.    Given  that  the  Government  conceded  the  UDV’s 
prima  facie  RFRA  case  in  the  District  Court  and  that  the  evidence 
found to be in equipoise related to an affirmative defense as to which 
the  Government  bore  the  burden  of  proof,  the  UDV  effectively  dem-
onstrated  a  likelihood  of  success  on  the  merits.    The  Government’s 
argument that, although it would bear the burden of demonstrating a 
compelling interest at trial on the merits, the UDV should have borne 
the burden of disproving such interests at the preliminary injunction 
hearing  is  foreclosed  by  Ashcroft  v.  American  Civil  Liberties  Union, 
542 U. S. 656, 666.  There, in affirming the grant of a preliminary in-
junction  against  the  Government,  this  Court  reasoned  that  the  bur-
dens  with  respect  to  the  compelling  interest  test  at  the  preliminary 
injunction  stage  track  the  burdens  at  trial.    The  Government’s  at-
tempt  to  limit  the  Ashcroft  rule  to  content-based  restrictions  on 
speech is unavailing.  The fact that Ashcroft involved such a restric-
tion in no way affected the Court’s assessment of the consequences of 
having the burden at trial for preliminary injunction purposes.  Con-
gress’  express  decision  to  legislate  the  compelling  interest  test  indi-
cates  that  RFRA  challenges  should  be  adjudicated  in  the  same  way 
as the test’s constitutionally mandated applications, including at the 
preliminary injunction stage.  Pp. 6–8.

2. Also  rejected  is  the  Government’s  central  submission  that,  be-
cause  it  has  a  compelling  interest  in  the  uniform  application  of  the 
Controlled Substances Act, no exception to the DMT ban can be made 
to  accommodate  the  UDV.    The  Government  argues,  inter  alia,  that 
the  Act’s  description  of  Schedule  I  substances  as  having  “a  high  po-
tential for abuse,” “no currently accepted medical use,” and “a lack of