2 of 2

Kelly Shackelford, chief counsel for Liberty Legal Institute, said the institute argued in its friend-of-the-court brief that because the government already allows Native Americans to use peyote, the case was not compelling.

"When they infringe on religious freedom, governments tend to theoretically argue that they have a compelling reason to interfere," Shackelford said. "This takes the mask off of those cases that say it's compelling."

Shackelford said the Court may not have found compelling interest in the case had it involved a larger religious group. "Are the facts of this case really important? No," he said. "But once you read this case, you see really important doctrines that will protect religious freedom for decades."

Roberts upheld two lower court decisions that said federal agents were wrong to confiscate the tea in 1999. The case now returns to lower courts, where the government is entitled to make its case more fully at a trial.

Justice Samuel Alito, the newest member of the Court, did not participate in arguments or the Court's decision, because the case was argued before he joined the bench.

Kevin Eckstrom is associate editor of Religion News Service. Sarah Pulliam is news intern for Christianity Today.

Copyright © 2006 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

The Supreme Court's decision Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao Do Vegetal (04-1084) is available from the Court's website.

The First Amendment Center has news stories, court documents, and other information about the case.

Christianity Today's Weblog compiled news stories about the decision.

first page |  2 of 2

share this page

February (Web-only) 2006, Vol. 50