This week in the Supreme Court

A

Al Norris

Moderator Emeritus
On Tuesday, 02-21-2006 the Supreme court issued 3 per curiam rulings and two decisions. Today the Court 4 more rulings. That's 9 cases resolved and issued in two days.

Of special note (perhaps only to me) is the consistancy at which Thomas opines against the Courts Majority findings. In BUCKEYE CHECK CASHING, INC., PETITIONER v. JOHN CARDEGNA ET AL. No. (04-1264), Thomas holds "Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U. S. C. §1 et seq., does not apply to proceedings in state courts. See Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos. v. Dobson, 513 U. S. 265, 285–297 (1995) (THOMAS, J., dissenting); Doctor’s Associates, Inc. v. Casarotto, 517 U. S. 681, 689 (1996) (same); Green Tree Financial Corp. v. Bazzle, 539 U. S. 444, 460 (2003) (same). Thus, in state-court proceedings, the FAA cannot be the basis for displacing a state law that prohibits enforcement of an arbitration clause contained in a contract that is unenforceable under state law. Accordingly, I would leave undisturbed the judgment of the Florida Supreme Court."

This makes the fourth case that Thomas has consistently applied a federal law to federal things and reserved to the State that which is properly, a State matter.

Now onto a more important case. In GONZALES, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET AL. v. O CENTRO ESPIRITA BENEFICENTE UNIAO DO VEGETAL ET AL. (No. 04-1084), a unanimous Court held that an obscure religious sect could indeed ingest a sacremental tea, that contained the hallucinogenic DMT, in their sacred rituals.

This ruling pits the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 against the weight of the Commerce Clause and the Controlled Substances Act. This was a major case in upholding the Religious Freedom Act, which many have said would not stand up in Court. Folks, the Commerce Clause lost. Like the Ruling in Gonzales v Oregon (01-17-2006) the Controlled substance Act has taken another hit. (That's two rulings that undermine the decision in Raich, of last summer.)

What's more important, is that this was a unanimous decision and that newly Confirmed Chief Justice Roberts wrote the decision.

nb: Justice Alito played no part in this case. Still waiting....
 
I vehemently disagree with the second decision.

Basically, occasional use of DMT is okay if you belong to that religion, but it's not otherwise? That strikes me as a Law Respecting The Establishment of Religion. It may not be an equal protection violation, as people get to freely choose their religion (or lack thereof), but I can't accept that a religious connection can protect an activity that's otherwise illegal. If the members of one religion are allowed to do something, everyone should be allowed to do it.
 
It would be a law protecting undue burdens on religious practices not a law establishing any religion. The court said that the Government could not meet the burden of compelling interest why undue burdens should be placed on this practice.The health risks were balanced and there was no evidience of distribution outside the religion.
 
Agree with Eghad, tyme.

The issue of Religious Freedom was so important in the beginning and has been so ingrained ever since, the Courts (rightfully) give it as wide a berth as possible.

I'd also think they need to balance some of the religious drug customs with the knowledge of the frequency of use, "non-recreational" use and the like; of course, to do that, I'd have to give a Rat's Hiney what other people put in their bodies. I don't.
Rich
 
tyme, even back during Prohibition, certain religions were exempted from the law, and served real wine during their services.

There are certain tribes of Indians that use peyote in their services.

As Eghad remarked, it is a religious practice that is being protected (remember the first amendment?). The ruling establishes no religion. It is actually a good decision, more so than Gonzales v Oregon (in light of Raich).
 
I don't see the vegetables et al case as a commerce clause loss. The case didn't seem to question the validity of the CSA as an application of commerce power. As I understand it, the Court is saying federal laws can't violate religious freedom. That would apply whether the law in question is based on commerce power, taxing power, or some other power.
 
There are certain tribes of Indians that use peyote in their services.
Click to expand...

This practice is, AFAIK, still banned even for religious uses. I haven't heard of any reversal of that decision but then again, I haven't looked for one either.

This new ruling disturbs me greatly because there is nothing in it to prevent the establishment of a religious cult which practices excessive hard-drug useage. Something like the "Church of Extreme Heroin and Methamphetamines". Under this new decision, this "church" could legitimately cook meth and distribute it to it's members and the locals would have no recourse against it. So long as it qualifies as a religious org it would be exempt.

And we all know how easy it is to qualify as a legit religious org. Remember all those death cults from the 80's and 90's? They were all "legit".
 
And we all know how easy it is to qualify as a legit religious org. Remember all those death cults from the 80's and 90's? They were all "legit".
Click to expand...
I'd need some real sources on this, Rob. Calling yourself a Church does not immediately grant you the legal recognition. Scientology, with all its money, power and influence had to wait for Bill Clinton to get the designation from IRS.

As for this opening the door to wholesale abuse, I tend to doubt it. I tend to doubt SCOTUS will agree that incest, human sacrifice or wholesale drug use make the cut.
Rich
 
"Church of Extreme Heroin and Methamphetamines".

If the Government presented its case properly and there were compelling intrest under the law that the practice carried considerable health risks and that distribution occured outside the religion for profit then undue burdens could be placed upon this religion..lol PDQ.

Plus the religion being of fairly recent origion would not help its case.

In the first case this was a well established religion with established practices.
not a fly by night religon that just popped up.
 
This does start to raise the question about what is or isn't religion, and why the government (IRS, DEA) would have any say in it.

Someone WILL attempt to take advantage of this, and "Rod's Church of Holy Crack" may need to go all the way to SCOTUS to determine how one group that worships rocks is a "religion", and their worship of another kind of rock is illegal.


But I guess you get into this sort of pickle when you have laws that only protect certain types of drug use. Any of you pot smoking hippies want to fix your lives up, and join me for a beer?
 
Rob:
Congress declared an exception from the Controlled Substances Act for Native American religious use of peyote, see 21 CFR §1307.31; 42 U. S. C. §1996a(b)(1).

Publius:
It was the DOJ that brought the prohibition against the UDV via the CSA. The CSA is predicated upon the Commerce Clause.

The Court didn't say that the laws couldn't violate religious freedom. The Court held that the RFRA demanded that the courts decide issues by applying strict scrutiny. That is, using the least harmful method of application. Under strict scrutiny, the DOJ didn't prove its case, as the DOJ used only one method and proffered no others.

Regardless, if your reading the decision, pay careful attention to how Roberts links all data points to draw the conclusion. For me, that was the real interest in this case. We've all wanted to know how Roberts might rule. Now we have a better idea.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top