Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal
SimpleOriginal

Summary

In this 2006 case the Court held religious use of a controlled substance was protected from federal prosecution under RFRA.

2006 | Federal Juristiction

Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal

Keywords Religious Freedom Restoration Act; RFRA; religious use; controlled substance; federal prosecution; religious exemption
Open Case as PDF

Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal

The 2006 Supreme Court decision in Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal established the Religious Freedom Restoration Act's (RFRA) protection against federal prosecution for religiously motivated use of controlled substances.

Open Case as PDF

Gonzales v. Raich (2006)

The 2006 Supreme Court case Gonzales v. Raich addressed the intersection of religious freedom and federal drug laws. The Court's decision established that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) did not protect the religious use of a controlled substance from federal prosecution under the Commerce Clause. This ruling underscored the broad reach of federal regulatory power, even in cases involving sincerely held religious beliefs. The Court's interpretation of RFRA in this instance emphasized the compelling governmental interest in regulating interstate commerce, outweighing the individual's religious freedom claims in this specific context. The majority opinion highlighted the potential for substantial impact on the national market, even with localized cultivation and consumption.

Open Case as PDF

2006 Religious Freedom Case

In a 2006 court case, the court decided that using a controlled substance for religious reasons was protected from federal prosecution under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).

Open Case as PDF

Summary

In 2006, a court case decided that people could use certain drugs for religious reasons without getting in trouble with the federal government. This was because of a law that protects religious freedom.

Open Case as PDF

Footnotes and Citation

Cite

546 U.S. 418 (2006)

Highlights