Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/05pdf/04-1084.pdf
Page Number: 19

14 

GONZALES v. O CENTRO ESPIRITA BENEFICENTE 
UNIAO DO VEGETAL 
Opinion of the Court 

peyote  exception,  however,  has  been  in  place  since  the 
outset  of  the  Controlled  Substances  Act,  and  there  is  no 
evidence  that  it  has  “undercut”  the  Government’s  ability 
to enforce the ban on peyote use by non-Indians. 

The Government points to some pre-Smith cases relying 
on  a  need  for  uniformity  in  rejecting  claims  for  religious 
exemptions  under  the  Free  Exercise  Clause,  see  Brief  for 
Petitioners 16, but those cases strike us as quite different 
from  the  present  one.    Those  cases  did  not  embrace  the 
notion  that  a  general  interest  in  uniformity  justified  a 
substantial  burden  on  religious  exercise;  they  instead 
scrutinized  the  asserted  need  and  explained  why  the 
denied exemptions could not be accommodated.  In United 
States  v.  Lee,  455  U. S.  252  (1982),  for  example,  the  Court 
rejected a  claimed  exception  to  the  obligation  to  pay  Social 
Security  taxes,  noting  that  “mandatory  participation  is 
indispensable  to  the  fiscal  vitality  of  the  social  security
system”  and  that  the  “tax  system  could  not  function  if  de-
nominations  were  allowed  to  challenge  the  tax  system 
because tax payments were spent in a manner that violates 
their religious belief.”  Id., at  258, 260.  See also Hernandez 
v.  Commissioner,  490  U. S.  680,  700  (1989)  (same).    In 
Braunfeld v. Brown, 366 U. S. 599 (1961) (plurality opinion), 
the  Court  denied  a  claimed  exception  to  Sunday  closing 
laws,  in  part  because  allowing  such  exceptions  “might  well 
provide  [the  claimants]  with  an  economic  advantage  over 
their competitors who must remain closed on that day.”  Id., 
at 608–609.  The whole point of a “uniform day of rest for all 
workers”  would  have  been  defeated  by  exceptions.    See 
Sherbert,  374  U. S.,  at  408  (discussing  Braunfeld).  These 
cases show that the Government can demonstrate a compel-
ling interest in uniform application of a particular program 
by  offering  evidence  that  granting  the  requested  religious 
accommodations  would  seriously  compromise  its  ability  to 
administer the program. 

Here the Government’s argument for uniformity is differ-