Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/05pdf/04-1084.pdf
Page Number: 13.0

8 

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

injunction.  This  argument  is  foreclosed  by  our  recent 
decision in Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 542 
U. S.  656  (2004).  In  Ashcroft,  we  affirmed  the  grant  of  a 
preliminary  injunction  in  a  case  where  the  Government 
had  failed  to  show  a  likelihood  of  success  under  the  com-
pelling  interest  test.  We  reasoned  that  “[a]s  the  Govern-
ment bears the burden of proof on the ultimate question of 
[the  challenged  Act’s]  constitutionality,  respondents  [the 
movants]  must  be  deemed  likely  to  prevail  unless  the 
Government  has  shown  that  respondents’  proposed  less 
restrictive  alternatives  are  less  effective  than  [enforcing 
the Act].”  Id., at 666.  That logic extends to this case; here 
the Government failed on the first prong of the compelling 
interest test, and did not reach the least restrictive means 
prong,  but  that  can  make  no  difference.    The  point  re-
mains  that  the  burdens  at  the  preliminary  injunction
stage track the burdens at trial. 

The  Government  attempts  to  limit  the  rule  announced 
in Ashcroft to content-based restrictions on speech, but the 
distinction  is  unavailing.  The  fact  that  Ashcroft  involved 
such a restriction was the reason the Government had the 
burden  of  proof  at  trial  under  the  First  Amendment,  see 
id., at 665, but in no way affected the Court’s assessment 
of the consequences of having that burden for purposes of 
the  preliminary  injunction.    Here  the  burden  is  placed 
squarely  on  the  Government  by  RFRA  rather  than  the 
First Amendment, see 42 U. S. C. §§2000bb–1(b), 2000bb– 
2(3),  but  the  consequences  are  the  same.    Congress’  ex-
press  decision  to  legislate  the  compelling  interest  test 
indicates  that  RFRA  challenges  should  be  adjudicated  in 
the  same  manner  as  constitutionally  mandated  applica-
tions  of  the  test,  including  at  the  preliminary  injunction 
stage. 

The Government’s second line of argument rests on the 

III