Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/05pdf/04-1084.pdf
Page Number: 18

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

13 

Opinion of the Court 

tionship justifies overriding the same congressional findings 
on  which  the  Government  relies  in  resisting  any  exception 
for the UDV’s religious use of hoasca.  In other words, if any 
Schedule  I  substance  is  in  fact  always  highly  dangerous  in 
any  amount  no  matter  how  used,  what  about  the  unique 
relationship  with  the  Tribes  justifies  allowing  their  use  of 
peyote?    Nothing  about  the  unique  political  status  of  the 
Tribes makes their members immune from the health risks 
the Government asserts accompany any use of a Schedule I 
substance, nor insulates the Schedule I substance the Tribes 
use in religious exercise from the alleged risk of diversion. 

The  Government  argues  that  the  existence  of  a  congres-
sional exemption for peyote does not indicate that the Con-
trolled  Substances  Act  is  amenable  to  judicially  crafted 
exceptions.
  RFRA,  however,  plainly  contemplates  that 
courts  would  recognize  exceptions—that  is  how  the  law 
works.    See  42  U. S. C.  §2000bb–1(c)  (“A  person  whose 
religious  exercise  has  been  burdened  in  violation  of  this 
section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a 
judicial  proceeding  and  obtain  appropriate  relief  against  a 
government”).  Congress’ role in the peyote exemption—and 
the Executive’s, see 21 CFR §1307.31 (2005)—confirms that 
the  findings  in  the  Controlled  Substances  Act  do  not  pre-
clude exceptions altogether; RFRA makes clear that it is the 
obligation  of  the  courts  to  consider  whether  exceptions  are 
required under the test set forth by Congress. 

C 
The  well-established  peyote  exception  also  fatally  un-
dermines  the  Government’s  broader  contention  that  the 
Controlled Substances Act establishes a closed regulatory 
system  that  admits  of  no  exceptions  under  RFRA.    The 
Government  argues  that  the  effectiveness  of  the  Con-
trolled Substances Act will be “necessarily . . . undercut” if 
the  Act  is  not  uniformly  applied,  without  regard  to  bur-
dens  on  religious  exercise.    Brief  for  Petitioners  18.  The