Post by Okwes on Mar 6, 2006 13:37:24 GMT -5
Roberts upholds religious freedom in his first Native rights decision
Roberts upholds religious freedom in his first Native rights decision
Posted: March 03, 2006
by: Jim Adams <http://www.indiancountry.com/author.cfm?id=33> / Indian
Country Today
www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096412603
<http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096412603>
WASHINGTON - Chief Justice John Roberts took the side of indigenous
religious freedom in his first written Indian law opinion since joining
the U.S. Supreme Court.
In Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, decided
on Feb. 21, Roberts upheld a lower court injunction against U.S. Customs
inspectors who had seized a shipment of hoasca, a hallucinogenic tea
brewed from plants found only in the Amazon rain forest. The hoasca was
destined for sacramental use by American members of a Brazilian sect,
the Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal (UDV). Hoasca contains
DMT, a chemical regulated by the federal Controlled Substances Act.
Roberts rejected the government claim that it was entitled to hamper the
''sincere exercise'' of the UDV religion for the sake of applying the
act uniformly. He ruled that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of
1993 required the government to show that its ban on the tea was ''the
least restrictive means'' of furthering its interest in controlling
hallucinogenic substances.
The RFRA, designed to protect adherents of the Native American Church,
figured notably in Roberts' recent confirmation hearings. The act was a
key issue in a long-simmering dispute between Congress and the Supreme
Court. It passed in 1993 as a congressional attempt to overturn a 1990
Supreme Court ruling that allowed the state of Oregon to punish two
American Indians for participating in the peyote rite (See Employment
Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith). The court,
in turn, declared parts of the act unconstitutional, saying that
Congress had exceeded its authority in extending religious freedom as a
barrier against state law. (See City of Boerne v. Flores.)
Resentment against this override emerged in the Senate Judiciary
Committee hearings on Roberts and the subsequent floor debate. U.S. Sen.
Arlen Specter, R.-Pa., dealt with it at length, although press coverage
mocked his technical language.
Roberts disposed of the controversy in a quick footnote, saying the
Boerne ruling applied only to state law. His holding struck a
conciliatory note in what has been, in effect, a slow-motion
constitutional crisis between Congress and the court. ''Congress had a
reason for enacting RFRA, too,'' he reminded the government prosecutors.
''Congress recognized that 'laws neutral towards religion may burden
religious exercise as surely as laws intended to interfere with
religious exercise,' and legislated the 'compelling interest test' as
the means for the courts to 'strike sensible balances between religious
liberty and competing prior governmental interests.'''
He acknowledged that ''we have no reason to pretend that the task ... is
an easy one.'' But he deferred to congressional intent. ''But Congress
has determined that courts should strike sensible balances.''
Part of Roberts' opinion appeared to worry advocates of the Native
American Church, however. Roberts cited the federal law exception for
Indian use of peyote in justifying a ''similar exception for the 130 or
so American members of the UDV.'' Government lawyers had argued that the
peyote exception was based on the ''unique relation'' between the United
States and the tribes. Roberts retorted that the government brief
''never explains what about that 'unique' relation justifies overriding
the same congressional finding on which the government relies in
resisting any exception for the UDV's religious use of hoasca.
''In other words,'' he continued, if any controlled substance ''is in
fact always highly dangerous in any amount no matter how used, what
about the unique relationship with the Tribes justifies their use
of peyote?''
Some critics appear to have seen this passage as the entering wedge of
Roberts' call as a private lawyer for the rethinking of the federal
trust relationship with tribes. But Roberts was specifically ridiculing
the government's position that there should be no exceptions to the
Controlled Substances Act.
''The Government's argument echoes the classic rejoinder of bureaucrats
throughout history,'' he wrote. ''If I make an exception for you, I'll
have to make one for everybody, so no exceptions.''
Instead, he wrote, ''Congress determined that the legislated test 'is a
workable test for striking reasonable balances between religious liberty
and competing prior governmental interests.'''
The decision was unanimous, except for newly confirmed Justice Samuel
Alito, who took no part in considering the case.
Roberts upholds religious freedom in his first Native rights decision
Posted: March 03, 2006
by: Jim Adams <http://www.indiancountry.com/author.cfm?id=33> / Indian
Country Today
www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096412603
<http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096412603>
WASHINGTON - Chief Justice John Roberts took the side of indigenous
religious freedom in his first written Indian law opinion since joining
the U.S. Supreme Court.
In Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, decided
on Feb. 21, Roberts upheld a lower court injunction against U.S. Customs
inspectors who had seized a shipment of hoasca, a hallucinogenic tea
brewed from plants found only in the Amazon rain forest. The hoasca was
destined for sacramental use by American members of a Brazilian sect,
the Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal (UDV). Hoasca contains
DMT, a chemical regulated by the federal Controlled Substances Act.
Roberts rejected the government claim that it was entitled to hamper the
''sincere exercise'' of the UDV religion for the sake of applying the
act uniformly. He ruled that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of
1993 required the government to show that its ban on the tea was ''the
least restrictive means'' of furthering its interest in controlling
hallucinogenic substances.
The RFRA, designed to protect adherents of the Native American Church,
figured notably in Roberts' recent confirmation hearings. The act was a
key issue in a long-simmering dispute between Congress and the Supreme
Court. It passed in 1993 as a congressional attempt to overturn a 1990
Supreme Court ruling that allowed the state of Oregon to punish two
American Indians for participating in the peyote rite (See Employment
Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith). The court,
in turn, declared parts of the act unconstitutional, saying that
Congress had exceeded its authority in extending religious freedom as a
barrier against state law. (See City of Boerne v. Flores.)
Resentment against this override emerged in the Senate Judiciary
Committee hearings on Roberts and the subsequent floor debate. U.S. Sen.
Arlen Specter, R.-Pa., dealt with it at length, although press coverage
mocked his technical language.
Roberts disposed of the controversy in a quick footnote, saying the
Boerne ruling applied only to state law. His holding struck a
conciliatory note in what has been, in effect, a slow-motion
constitutional crisis between Congress and the court. ''Congress had a
reason for enacting RFRA, too,'' he reminded the government prosecutors.
''Congress recognized that 'laws neutral towards religion may burden
religious exercise as surely as laws intended to interfere with
religious exercise,' and legislated the 'compelling interest test' as
the means for the courts to 'strike sensible balances between religious
liberty and competing prior governmental interests.'''
He acknowledged that ''we have no reason to pretend that the task ... is
an easy one.'' But he deferred to congressional intent. ''But Congress
has determined that courts should strike sensible balances.''
Part of Roberts' opinion appeared to worry advocates of the Native
American Church, however. Roberts cited the federal law exception for
Indian use of peyote in justifying a ''similar exception for the 130 or
so American members of the UDV.'' Government lawyers had argued that the
peyote exception was based on the ''unique relation'' between the United
States and the tribes. Roberts retorted that the government brief
''never explains what about that 'unique' relation justifies overriding
the same congressional finding on which the government relies in
resisting any exception for the UDV's religious use of hoasca.
''In other words,'' he continued, if any controlled substance ''is in
fact always highly dangerous in any amount no matter how used, what
about the unique relationship with the Tribes justifies their use
of peyote?''
Some critics appear to have seen this passage as the entering wedge of
Roberts' call as a private lawyer for the rethinking of the federal
trust relationship with tribes. But Roberts was specifically ridiculing
the government's position that there should be no exceptions to the
Controlled Substances Act.
''The Government's argument echoes the classic rejoinder of bureaucrats
throughout history,'' he wrote. ''If I make an exception for you, I'll
have to make one for everybody, so no exceptions.''
Instead, he wrote, ''Congress determined that the legislated test 'is a
workable test for striking reasonable balances between religious liberty
and competing prior governmental interests.'''
The decision was unanimous, except for newly confirmed Justice Samuel
Alito, who took no part in considering the case.