In 1990, the US Supreme Court shook the foundations of religious liberty in America.

Five justices declared in a landmark decision that there is no fundamental right under the First Amendment's free exercise clause to a religious exemption from any law that applies to everyone in society, no matter how oppressive that law might be to a particular religious faith.

The only recourse for religions affected by a neutral, generally applicable law is to lobby lawmakers to make an exception, the high court said. But there is no constitutional right to an exception.

The ruling alarmed many minority religious sects in the US whose chosen methods of worship are frequently misunderstood and sometimes ridiculed by society. Often they lack the political clout needed to protect their faiths through legislation.

In light of these concerns, Congress responded to the ruling by passing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. It orders judges to conduct a rigorous case-by-case examination of any law that clashes with religious freedoms.

Now, 15 years after its landmark ruling, the US Supreme Court has agreed to take up a case examining whether religious rights granted by statute under RFRA may trump the nation's drug laws in the same way constitutional protections might have protected religious groups prior to the 1990 ruling. At issue is the sacramental use of a tea-like mixture (which is allegedly hallucinogenic) during worship ceremonies by American adherents of a Brazilian religious sect called O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao Do Vegetal (UDV).

The case pits the nation's war on drugs against the scope of religious freedom in the US. More specifically, it pits the federal drug law, the Controlled Substances Act, against the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). The Bush administration, which urged the high court to take up the case to reverse a series of lower court rulings siding with the religious group, says the drug laws must be enforced regardless of religious requests for accommodation.

Acting Solicitor General Paul Clement says earlier rulings by a federal judge and the 10th US Circuit Court of Appeals will undermine the government's ability to effectively battle drug abuse and drug trafficking. He says no other court has ever ordered the government to permit a religious exemption to the Controlled Substances Act. Others counter that in passing RFRA, Congress established the preservation of religious liberty as a top priority, saying that the new religious freedom law applies to all laws.

In a friend of the court brief, Gregory Baylor of the Christian Legal Society says efforts to outlaw sacramental tea is "tantamount to banning the wine served at a Roman Catholic mass."

Others say RFRA violates the separation of powers by forcing judges to assume the role of lawmakers tasked to amend the nation's drug laws on a case-by-case basis.

Page: 1 | 2