Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/05pdf/04-1084.pdf
Page Number: 11

6 

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

tea  to  persons  of  church  authority,  and  to  warn  particu-
larly  susceptible  UDV  members  of  the  dangers  of  hoasca. 
See  Preliminary  Injunction  ¶¶2,  5–12,  32–33,  App.  F  to 
App.  to  Pet.  for  Cert.  249a,  250a–252a,  258a–259a.    The 
injunction  also  provides  that  “if  [the  Government]  be-
lieve[s]  that  evidence  exists  that  hoasca  has  negatively 
affected the health of UDV members,” or “that a shipment 
of hoasca contain[s] particularly dangerous levels of DMT, 
[the Government] may apply to the Court for an expedited 
determination  of  whether  the  evidence  warrants  suspen-
sion or revocation of [the UDV’s authority to use hoasca].” 
Id., at 257a, ¶29. 

The  Government  appealed  the  preliminary  injunction 
and a panel of the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit 
affirmed, O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao do Vegetal 
v. Ashcroft, 342 F. 3d 1170 (2003), as did a majority of the 
Circuit sitting en banc, 389 F. 3d 973 (2004).  We granted 
certiorari.  544 U. S. 973 (2005). 

II 
Although its briefs contain some discussion of the poten-
tial for harm and diversion from the UDV’s use of hoasca, 
the  Government  does  not  challenge  the  District  Court’s 
factual findings or its conclusion that the evidence submit-
ted  on  these  issues  was  evenly  balanced.    Instead,  the 
Government  maintains  that  such  evidentiary  equipoise  is 
an  insufficient  basis  for  issuing  a  preliminary  injunction 
against enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act.  We 
review  the  District  Court’s  legal  rulings  de  novo  and  its 
ultimate  decision  to  issue  the  preliminary  injunction  for
abuse  of  discretion.    See  McCreary  County  v.  American 
Civil Liberties Union, 545 U. S. ___ , ___ (2005) (slip op., at 
19).

The  Government  begins  by 

the  well-
established principle that the party seeking pretrial relief 
bears the burden of demonstrating a likelihood of success 

invoking