History

Gonzales v . O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do vegetalThis case is important because it upholds the long-standing school of thought that First Amendment rights cannot be well burdened unless certain natural requirements ar to be be by the disposal Respondents argon members of O Centro Espnrita Beneficente Uniao do vegetative (UDV , a Christian combination whose members receive communion finished hoasca , a sacramental tea leaf leaf made from cardinal plants . One of these two is genus Psychotria viridis , which contains dimethyltryptamine (DMT , a h aloneucinogen . on a lower floor Schedule I of the Controlled Substances perish , DMT is a regulated midpoint . In 1999 , customs officials seized UDV s hoasca freightage and jeopardize them with prosecution . UDV because d for declaratory and injunctive rilievo against the legality enforcement officials each(prenominal)eging a infraction of their rights under the Religious independence coming back playact of 1993 . The district court and the display panel of the judicial system of Appeals for the no. Circuit upheld the validity of the injunctionOn certiorari , the Government conceded that the finish of the Controlled Substances comprise would result in a substantial burden on UDV s exercise of their morality . It , tho , posited that the challenged activity is the least restrictive room of furthering governmental interests . The governmental interests enumerated were : protecting UDV members health and rubber eraser , preventing the diversion of hoasca from the church to unskilled users , and complying with the 1971 United Nations Convention on Psychotropic Substances .

UDV , on another(prenominal) hand , alleged that the application is violative of their RFRA rights and that such legislating prohibits the Federal Government from applying laws which would substantially burden a someone s free exercise of his religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicabilityThe salute affirmed the injunction issued . It rule that the Government was not mates to meet the test of obligate interest and that the rule was not the least restrictive means of furthering any governmental interestThe Respondents arguments are more persuasive because curtailment of First Amendment Rights are presumed unconstitutional . These rights are fundamental and they cannot be treated lightly and be substantially burdened unless the appeal is persuaded that the restricting authority has complied with all tests of constitutionality . And , in this case , the Government failed to meet such burdenREFERENCEGonzales , lawyer General , Et Al . v . O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao Do vegetal Et Al546 U . S (2006Gonzales v . O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal...If you insufficiency to get a all-embracing essay, order it on our website: Orderessay

If you want to get a full information about our service, visit our page: How it works.