Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/05pdf/04-1084.pdf
Page Number: 8.0

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

3 

Opinion of the Court 

from  a  rule  of  general  applicability.”  §2000bb–1(a).  The 
only  exception  recognized  by  the  statute  requires  the
Government  to  satisfy  the  compelling  interest  test—to 
“demonstrat[e]  that  application  of  the  burden  to  the  per-
son—(1)  is  in  furtherance  of  a  compelling  government 
interest;  and  (2)  is  the  least  restrictive  means  of  further-
ing that compelling governmental interest.”  §2000bb–1(b). 
A  person  whose  religious  practices  are  burdened  in  viola-
tion  of  RFRA  “may  assert  that  violation  as  a  claim  or 
defense  in  a  judicial  proceeding  and  obtain  appropriate 
relief.”  §2000bb–1(c).1 

The  Controlled  Substances  Act,  84  Stat.  1242,  as 
amended,  21  U. S. C.  §801  et  seq.  (2000  ed.  and  Supp.  I), 
regulates  the  importation,  manufacture,  distribution,  and 
use  of  psychotropic  substances.  The  Act  classifies  sub-
stances  into  five  schedules  based  on  their  potential  for
abuse, the extent to which they have an accepted medical 
use, and their safety.  See §812(b) (2000 ed.).  Substances 
listed  in  Schedule  I  of  the  Act  are  subject  to  the  most 
comprehensive  restrictions,  including  an  outright  ban  on 
all  importation  and  use,  except  pursuant  to  strictly  regu-
lated  research  projects.    See  §§823,  960(a)(1).    The  Act 
authorizes the imposition of a criminal sentence for simple
possession  of  Schedule  I  substances,  see  §844(a),  and 
mandates the imposition of a criminal sentence for posses-
sion  “with  intent  to  manufacture,  distribute,  or  dispense” 
such substances, see §§841(a), (b).

O  Centro  Espírita  Beneficente  União  do  Vegetal  (UDV)
is  a  Christian  Spiritist  sect  based  in  Brazil,  with  an 
American  branch  of  approximately  130  individuals.  Cen-
tral  to  the  UDV’s  faith  is  receiving  communion  through 

—————— 

1 As originally enacted, RFRA applied to States as well as the Federal 
Government.    In  City  of  Boerne  v. Flores,  521  U. S.  507  (1997),  we  held 
the  application  to  States  to  be  beyond  Congress’  legislative  authority 
under §5 of the 14th Amendment.