Today the Supreme Court *unanimously* ruled in favor of a Brazilian sect, which asked for an exemption from federal drug laws. As part of their religious ceremonies, members of the group, O Centro Espírita Beneficiente União Do Vegetal (UDV), consume tea made from plants containing a drug prohibited in the US. The feds had warned the group that they would be subject to criminal prosecution if they imported the tea from Brazil. The Supreme Court now decided that the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause requires the government to make an exception to the narcotics laws to protect the group's religious practices.
I have not yet read the opinion (which you can find here), but it seems that the Court has upheld the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), after all. The RFRA requires federal courts to use a legal standard that is very protective of religious freedom and basically gives it the same legal standing as the freedom of speech. In 1997 (City of Boerne v. Flores), the Supremes decided that it was not Congress's business to tell the courts which legal standards to use and, it seemed, overturned the RFRA (if you are taking my conlaw class this term, you know what I'm talking about). Now it seems as if the law is not overturned, after all. Interesting. What has changed?
No comments:
Post a Comment