Tim O'Brien has the story.
TIM O'BRIEN: No, this is not just another tour group visiting the Supreme Court. Meet the U.S. congregation of the União do Vegetal Church. With only 130 members, it is tiny. But religious leaders agree the impact of the case the church brought to the Supreme Court this week could be huge.União do Vegetal, or UDV, originated in Brazil and has followers throughout South America. The faith blends Christian beliefs with tribal South American traditions. Central to the faith is receiving Communion through hoasca, a tea made from two plants unique to the Amazon rain forest. The tea contains a small amount of dimethyltryptamine -- a hallucinogenic ingredient strictly controlled under federal drug laws. When UDV sought to import hoasca from Brazil, customs officials seized the tea and tried to block further imports. UDV took the government to court.
JEFFREY BRONFMAN (President, União do Vegetal Church, United States): We came before the Supreme Court of the United States today asking for the affirmation of a right already enjoyed by millions of other Americans -- a right to simply be able to practice our religion without the threat of interference or imprisonment by the government.O'BRIEN: Sixteen years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that Oregon could prohibit Native American Indians from using peyote in their religious ceremonies. The court reasoned that Native Americans weren't being singled out because of their religious beliefs -- that the drug laws applied equally to everyone, and any burden on religion was only incidental.
That decision touched off a firestorm on Capitol Hill, and Congress quickly passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The law requires [that] any government burden on religious freedom be justified by "a compelling governmental interest" and that the government must use the "least restrictive means."
That is a very high hurdle, but one Justice Department lawyers told the Supreme Court this week it had met in blocking importation of hoasca. The ingredients in hoasca are dangerous even under medical supervision, they said, and the government has a compelling interest in protecting public health from any abuse.
Attorney John Boyd, representing the church, disagrees.
K. HOLLYN HOLLMAN (General Counsel, Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty): We filed on behalf of the church at issue here, saying that the court should not accept the government's position in this case -- a position that would largely undercut this religious freedom statute that protects freedom of religion for all of us.
O'BRIEN: That's unprecedented. I don't think it's going to be an issue, however. It wasn't with his nomination. I don't think they're going to take it into consideration in the hearings.
