The Supreme Court ruled today that members of a Brazilian religion that involves drinking hallucinogenic tea are allowed to engage in their practice.

Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, 04-1084 pitted the U.S. attorney general against a Brazilian church (abbreviated "UDV") that drinks hoasca, a hallucinogenic tea, as part of its religious rituals. A shipment of hoasca was seized by U.S. customs officials in 1999, as the active ingredient in hoasca, DMT, is classified as a Schedule I narcotic by the DEA. UDV filed suit against the government, alleging that confiscating the tea is a violation of the the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), which allowed members of the Native American Church to consume peyote as part of their religious rituals.

Lest you think the court is populated by crazy neo-cons who want to engage in a War on Drugs at all costs, prepare to be astounded: the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the government was wrong to confiscate the hallucinogenic tea!

The opinion, written by Chief Justice Roberts, focuses mainly on the procedural issue of whether or not a lower court was right to issue an injunction against the federal government. An injunction is a court order that prevents someone from doing something while the legality of an action is being decided in court. In this case, a federal district court issued an injunction against the federal government, barring it from enforcing the Controlled Substances Act while the case was being decided, allowing members of UDV to use the DMT in their religious practices.

At issue was whether or not lower courts erred in issuing an injunction against the government. Roberts and the other members of the court agreed that the lower courts were correct, since UDV demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of the case.

Roberts and the court also dismissed the government's argument that "the Act's description of Schedule I substances as having 'a high potential for abuse,' 'no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States,' and 'a lack of accepted safety for use ... under medical supervision,' 21 U. S. C. §812(b)(1), by itself precludes any consideration of individualized exceptions such as that sought by the UDV," since exceptions have been made to the enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act regarding religious use of scheduled drugs.

So, maybe they're not that conservative, after all.