This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P is a religious sect that receives communion by drinking a sacramental tea, brewed from plants that contain a hallucinogen regulated under the Controlled Substances Act. D concedes that this practice is a sincere exercise of religion. D sought to prohibit P from engaging in the practice, on the ground that the Controlled Substances Act bars all use of the hallucinogen. P sued to block enforcement against it of the ban on the sacramental tea and moved for a preliminary injunction. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 overruled the concept that D that the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment does not prohibit governments from burdening religious practices through generally applicable laws. RFRA prohibits the Federal Government from substantially burdening a person's exercise of religion unless the Government 'demonstrates that application of the burden to the person' represents the least restrictive means of advancing a compelling interest. P got a preliminary injunction which was affirmed on appeal. D claims that it has a compelling interest in the uniform application of the Controlled Substances Act.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.