Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/05pdf/04-1084.pdf
Page Number: 1.0

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2005 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is 
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued. 
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been 
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

GONZALES, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET AL. v. O 
CENTRO ESPIRITA BENEFICENTE UNIAO DO 
VEGETAL ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR 
THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

No. 04–1084.  Argued November 1, 2005—Decided February 21, 2006 

Congress  enacted  the  Religious  Freedom  Restoration  Act  of  1993 
(RFRA) in response to Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of 
Ore.  v.  Smith,  494  U. S.  872,  where,  in  upholding  a  generally  appli-
cable  law  that  burdened  the  sacramental  use  of  peyote,  this  Court 
held  that  the  First  Amendment’s  Free  Exercise  Clause  does  not  re-
quire  judges  to  engage  in  a  case-by-case  assessment  of  the  religious 
burdens  imposed  by  facially  constitutional  laws,  id.,  at  883–890. 
Among  other  things,  RFRA  prohibits  the  Federal  Government  from 
substantially  burdening  a  person’s  exercise  of  religion,  “even  if  the 
burden  results  from  a  rule  of  general  applicability,”  42  U. S. C. 
§2000bb–1(a),  except  when  the  Government  can  “demonstrat[e]  that 
application  of  the  burden  to  the  person  (1)  [furthers]  a  compelling 
government interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of further-
ing that . . . interest,” §2000bb–1(b). 

Members of respondent church (UDV) receive communion by drink-
ing hoasca, a tea brewed from plants unique to the Amazon Rainfor-
est that contains DMT, a hallucinogen regulated under Schedule I of 
the Controlled Substances Act, see 21 U. S. C. §812(c), Schedule I(c). 
After  U. S.  Customs  inspectors  seized  a  hoasca  shipment  to  the 
American  UDV  and  threatened  prosecution,  the  UDV  filed  this  suit 
for  declaratory  and  injunctive  relief,  alleging,  inter  alia,  that  apply-
ing  the  Controlled  Substances  Act  to  the  UDV’s  sacramental hoasca 
use  violates  RFRA.    At  a  hearing  on  the  UDV’s  preliminary  injunc-
tion  motion,  the  Government  conceded  that  the  challenged  applica-
tion would substantially burden a sincere exercise of religion, but ar-
gued  that  this  burden  did  not  violate  RFRA  because  applying  the