http://www.goldsteinhowe.com/blog/archive/2004_12_05_SCOTUSblog.cfm#110270595545446896
2:06 PM | Lyle
Denniston
Link
to this Post
Tea injunction stands
The Supreme Court on Friday denied the
Justice Department's request to allow it to enforce a ban on religious use
of a hallucinogenic substance, hoasca tea, during the pendency of the
government's petition challenging a court's decision that the Religious
Freedom Restoration Act likely requires a religious exemption from the
Controlled Substances Act. A federal judge in New Mexico, relying upon
RFRA, has granted a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the CSA
as to a religious group's use of the tea.Here is the Court's order
Friday in Ashcroft v. O Centro Espirita, 04A469:"The
application for a stay of injunction or, in the alternative, to recall and
stay the mandate presented to Justice Breyer and by him referred to the
Court is denied. The temporary stay entered December 1, 2004, is
vacated."There was no indication of any dissent.[Addendum
from Marty Lederman: What this means, as a practical matter, is that the
members of the UDV will be able to use hoasca in religious rituals,
notwithstanding the Controlled Substances Act, for an extended period --
almost certainly the most significant RFRA exemption to federal law in the
history of that statute. Assuming the SG petitions for certiorari on the
preliminary injunction (rather than going back to district court for a
trial on the merits), and further assuming that the Court grants the
petition and rules for the Government, it will likely be at least a year
until the Court overturns the injunction. And by the time the Court hears
arguments in the case, presumably there will be some evidence concerning
whether the RFRA exemption has caused the harms -- in terms of health
risks, diversion to improper (non-RFRA-exempted) use, and damage to U.S.
efforts in the international narcotics-interdiction campaign -- that the
government has articulated. (Of course, if the Government does not return
to the district court, it might be very difficult to figure out a way to
include in the record of the case any intervening evidence of the
experience under the RFRA exemption.)]
___
To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
