RELIGIOUS FREEDOM VS. DRUG LAWS

[Alfa]

RELIGIOUS FREEDOM VS. DRUG LAWS


The Supreme Court Takes Up a Case Involving a New Mexico Sect That Could Be Important for Other Minority Religions.


WASHINGTON - In a case with potential important significance for minority religious groups in America, the US Supreme Court this week takes up a clash between the nation's drug laws and a statute protecting religious liberty.


At issue in the case set for oral argument Tuesday is the scope of the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). The law requires the federal government to justify any measure that substantially burdens a person's ability to practice his or her religion.


But what happens when a religious ceremony requires consumption of a drug outlawed under the Controlled Substances Act? That is the essence of the dispute in a case called (UDV).


Although the case involves the use of drugs, how the high court resolves the matter could have an impact on a wide array of religious groups in the United States that depend on a robust defense of religious liberty to practice their faith free of government interference. If the nation's drug laws are found to trump religious protections, other laws might also be applied in ways that substantially erode religious freedom, legal analysts say.


On the other hand, if religion may be invoked to easily bypass the nation's criminal laws, that could greatly complicate and undermine federal law-enforcement efforts, analysts say.


The case involves a religious sect of 130 members based in New Mexico. The group, adherents of the Brazil-based religion UDV, believes the use of sacramental tea in its ceremonies helps them connect with God. Consumption of the tea is the central ritual act of their faith. Some analysts liken it to the consecration of wine at a Roman Catholic mass or serving unleavened bread at a Passover Seder.


The problem is that the tea, made from two sacred plants found in the Amazon region of Brazil, contains a hallucinogenic substance banned in the US.


When US narcotics agents discovered this, they confiscated the group's supply of the sacramental tea as an illegal drug and barred them from importing any more from Brazil. The group sued, claiming the government was infringing on their religious rights by blocking a fundamental aspect of their religious worship and threatening to prosecute them should they continue to use the sacramental tea.


A federal judge and federal appeals court agreed with the group and issued a preliminary injunction against the government. The court ordered the government to accommodate the UDV members by allowing them a religious exemption from the drug laws. The courts ruled that such actions were necessary under RFRA.


Government's Case


In appealing to the Supreme Court, the Bush administration argues that the government has a compelling interest in the uniform enforcement of the nation's drug laws.


Congress determined that a categorical ban on this hallucinogenic substance was required to help protect the health and safety of Americans, including the followers of UDV, from detrimental effects, government lawyers say. "Religious motivation does not change the science," writes Solicitor General Paul Clement in his brief to the court.


The government also argues that a categorical ban is needed to prevent diversion of the drug into America's illicit recreational drug market. And it is necessary to comply with international treaties banning all trafficking in narcotics and psychotropic substances.


Lawyers for the religious group counter that Congress passed RFRA after it passed the Controlled Substances Act and that since RFRA applies to all federal law, it requires the government to make religious accommodations even from criminal drug laws when individual accommodations are deemed appropriate after a careful case-by-case review.


For example, Congress has created an exemption for the religious use of peyote by native Americans, they say.


"The government's successful accommodation of the sacramental use of peyote, also a [banned] Schedule I substance, belies its claim that such substances require a categorical ban, even for religious use,"


Nancy Hollander, an Albuquerque lawyer representing the UDV, writes in her brief.


Ms. Hollander accuses the government of playing fast and loose with the facts in claiming there are adverse health effects to the group's use of sacramental tea. She says the only study of sacramental tea use "found no significant health concerns."


On the potential for diversion for recreational drug use, she says use of the tea is tightly controlled during ceremonies, and consumption of the tea outside such ceremonies is considered sacrilegious. Hollander adds that there hasn't been a US conviction for attempting to traffic the hallucinogenic substance contained in the tea in 27 years.


She says the government's argument concerning international treaties is also flawed. The treaty doesn't apply to sacramental tea, she says, and other treaties signed by the US require signatory governments to respect and accommodate religious practices.


Other Groups Weighing In


Although the New Mexico sect has only 130 members, the case has attracted the attention of a large cross section of religious groups expressing concern about the case. They include the Baptist Joint Committee, the National Association of Evangelicals, Agudath Israel of America, the Minaret of Freedom Institute, the Sikh Coalition, and The First Church of Christ, Scientist, in Boston, which publishes this newspaper.


In an appendix to a friend-of-the-court brief supporting the UDV, the Christian Science Church said in part: "Although The First Church of Christ, Scientist, supports the legal arguments made in this brief, neither the church nor the theology of Christian Science supports the use of drugs or any other material substances as an aid or pathway to spirituality or a greater understanding of God."

[Alfa]

COURT DISCUSSES HALLUCINOGENIC TEA CASE


Justices Debate Whether Church's Drink Violates Federal Drug Laws


WASHINGTON - 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 might 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.


The justices seemed concerned by the government's claim that an exception could be made for peyote, but not for hoasca tea.


The Supreme Court argument was lively, with the new chief justice a particularly active questioner. Roberts suggested the Bush administration was demanding too much, a "zero-tolerance approach."


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.


Also Tuesday, the court considered whether police tricked a Maryland teenager into answering questions about a murder in a case that will give authorities guidelines for dealing with suspects who demand to see an attorney but then talk anyway.


Alito and Tea Case


The man nominated to replace the retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, Samuel Alito, has dealt with a variety of religion cases as an appeals court judge.


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.

[Alfa]

FAITH CASE BEFORE SUPREME COURT TARGETS ILLEGAL DRUGS


Justices Lean Toward Ceremonial Use of Hallucinogen


WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday reacted with surprising sympathy to the claim by a small religious movement with roots in Brazil that it should be allowed to import a tea containing an illegal hallucinogenic drug for use in its rituals.


If the justices decide in favor of the group, they would breathe new life into a 12-year-old federal law known as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which in certain cases allows believers to ignore laws that interfere with their faith.


Noting that federal law permits 250,000 members of the Native American Church to use the hallucinogen peyote as part of its worship, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked a lawyer for the Bush administration why it wants to prevent 130 U.S. adherents of a faith known as O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao do Vegetal from importing a sacramental tea known as hoasca from Brazil. Hoasca contains a hallucinogen called dimethyltryptamine or DMT.


"The government has to recognize one, why not the other?" Justice Ginsburg asked Deputy U.S. Solicitor General Edwin S. Kneedler.


Justice Antonin Scalia, noting that Native Americans have used peyote without the drug being diverted to general use, said that was "a demonstration that you can make an exception without the sky falling,"


an observation echoed by Justice Stephen Breyer.


Mr. Kneedler replied that Congress made an exception for the religious use of peyote out of respect for the traditional rights of Indian tribes.


But Justice David H. Souter noted that the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act was worded broadly. It might not matter, Justice Souter said, that "Congress didn't think of this case."


Congress passed the act to overrule a 1990 Supreme Court decision in which the justices upheld the state of Oregon's refusal to provide unemployment benefits to two members of the Native American Church who had been fired for using sacramental peyote.


The act, which was supported by a broad range of religious groups, allowed believers to opt out of generally applicable laws -- including drug laws -- if they had a religious motivation and their compliance with the law wasn't required by a "compelling state interest."


Moreover, the burden was on the government to prove that the "compelling" interest couldn't be achieved without violating religious freedom.


In 1997, the Supreme Court severely limited the reach of the act when it ruled that Congress lacked the authority to force states to comply with its provisions. But the law remained on the books as a limitation of the federal government.


Mr. Kneedler told the court that DMT, the active ingredient in hoasca, the tea consumed by the church, is illegal not only under U.S.


Controlled Substances Act but also under a 1971 treaty called the United Nations Convention on Psychotropic Substances.


But Nancy Hollander, the lawyer for the church, said that, properly interpreted, the treaty did not cover hoasca, and that other countries that signed the treaty have found ways to accommodate the use of otherwise-illegal drugs in religious rites.


That argument carried little weight with Justice Scalia, who doesn't believe that U.S. courts should rely on the decisions of foreign tribunals. But Justice Scalia suggested that the treaty issue was irrelevant because Congress could override a treaty, just as it could a federal statute.


Even Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who expressed strong support for federal drug regulation in a recent argument over physician-assisted suicide, suggested that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act might require some concessions to religious groups that used otherwise-banned drugs.


In a second argument yesterday, several justices expressed concern about the way a 17-year-old accused murderer in Annapolis, Md., was induced to talk to police even after he asserted his Miranda right to talk to a lawyer. Under a 1981 Supreme Court ruling, interrogation must stop once a suspect says he wants a lawyer.


After Leeander Blake said he didn't want to speak without an attorney present, a police officer showed him a court document suggesting -- falsely -- that he might face execution if convicted. "I bet you want to talk now, huh?" the officer said.


Another officer intervened, saying Mr. Blake already had asked for a lawyer and couldn't be questioned. But half an hour later, Mr. Blake asked the second officer if "I can still talk to you" and later incriminated himself.


Maryland's highest court refused to allow Mr. Blake's statement to be admitted, and most Supreme Court justices yesterday seemed to agree that Mr. Blake had not "initiated" the second conversation, but rather was responding to cues by the police.


Maryland Assistant Attorney General Kathryn Grill Graeff told the court that Mr. Blake had initiated the later conversation, but only Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Scalia seemed sympathetic to her position.

[Alfa]

JUSTICES DEBATE RELIGIOUS DRUG CASE


WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court wrangled on Tuesday over 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.


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 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.