High Court Hears Religious Freedom Case Involving 'High Tea'

The Supreme Court debated Tuesday whether to let a small congregation in New Mexico worship with hallucinogenic tea, the first religious freedom dispute under Chief Justice John Roberts. "This is a rather rough problem under the First Amendment," said Justice Stephen Breyer. The Bush administration contends the tea is not only illegal but potentially dangerous. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor seemed skeptical of the administration's claims, but she may not be around to vote in the case.

X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
The Supreme Court debated Tuesday whether to let a small congregation in New Mexico worship with hallucinogenic tea, the first religious freedom dispute under Chief Justice John Roberts. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor seemed skeptical of the Bush administration’s claim that the tea can be banned, but she may not be around to vote in the case. About 130 members of a Brazil-based church have been in a long-running dispute with federal agents who seized their tea in 1999. The hoasca tea, which contains an illegal drug known as DMT, is considered sacred to members of O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao do Vegetal. The Bush administration contends the tea is not only illegal but potentially dangerous. The Supreme Court has dealt with religious drug cases before. Justices ruled 15 years ago that states could criminalize the use of peyote by American Indians. But Congress changed the law to allow the sacramental use in tribal services of peyote, a bitter-tasting cactus that includes the hallucinogen mescaline. O’Connor pointed out during Tuesday’s argument that Congress changed the rules. She interrupted the Bush administration lawyer in his opening statement and peppered him with difficult questions. Other justices also seemed concerned by the government’s claim that an exception could be made for peyote, but not for hoasca tea. “That is a rather rough problem under the First Amendment,” said Justice Stephen Breyer. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the 1990 peyote opinion, said tribes have been using peyote — “a demonstration you can make an exception without the sky falling.” The man nominated to replace the retiring O’Connor, Samuel Alito, has dealt with a variety of religion cases as an appeals court judge. He wrote a 1999 opinion allowing Muslim police officers to keep their beards and voted that year to permit a government holiday display containing a creche, a menorah, a banner celebrating diversity and secular symbols of the season. Alito could be called on to vote in the religious tea case with a new argument session, if justices are divided 4-4 when O’Connor leaves the court. Her votes only count in cases decided while she is still on the bench. This case could take months to decide. “It’s not clear how he would rule,” said Anthony Picarello, president of The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. “Normally religious freedom cases are tricky to predict. This one is especially tricky.” Bush administration lawyer Edwin Kneedler told justices that the drug not only violates a federal narcotics law, but a treaty in which the United States promised to block the importation of drugs including dimethyltryptamine, also known as DMT. The hoasca tea had been imported from Brazil. He said other countries could back off the international war-on-drugs, citing lax U.S. enforcement of the treaty. Kneedler noted that the peyote used by Native Americans is grown in America and used here. The herbal hoasca brew is used in communion by the church, which has a blend of Christian beliefs and South American traditions. Members believe they can understand God only by drinking the tea, which is consumed twice a month at four-hour ceremonies. The Supreme Court argument was lively, with the new chief justice a particularly active questioner. Roberts asked tough questions of both sides. He suggested that the Bush administration was demanding too much, a “zero tolerance approach.” Church members want “just the right to practice their religious faith as Congress guaranteed,” said Nancy Hollander, the lawyer for the church that has a congregation in Santa Fe, N.M. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg suggested that justices could send the case back to a lower court without a ruling, because the case is not final. The appeal involves an injunction the church received to allow the tea. No trial has been held yet. The case is Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao Do Vegetal, 04-1084. Copyright 2005 Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

Trending Stories

 

Featured Product

Global Briefing

A weekly, curated selection of our international content from around the globe, across the business of law, in-house, regulatory, technology and more, with expert insights from our senior editors.

Learn More

More from ALM

 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Privacy Policy

About Us / Contact Us / Site Map / Advertise With Us/ Customer Service / Terms of Service/ FAQ / Privacy Policy

Publications

Law Topics

Rankings

More

Law.com

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.