Hoasca case

[David Griffiths]

Can anyone explain why the O Centro Church, which won in the Supreme Court in the 2006 Hoasca case, chose to rely on the federal RFRA, when presumably they would have had an equally strong case under First Amendment free exercise doctrine (the Lukumi/Newark line of decisions)? This seems clear from the fact that Justice Roberts uses Lukumi itself to flesh out the compelling interest limb of the RFRA test (ie, the fact that Congress had made an exemption from the Controlled Substance Act for thousands of native American sacramental users of peyote meant that - under Lukumi - it was difficult for the Government to argue that there was a compelling interest in banning hoasca for a few hundred sacramental users of that substance).

Surely a strategically minded religious group would go for First Amendment constitutional protection rather than statutory/RFRA? Or is it that the contingencies of litigation explain the choice of the RFRA route? Or have I read Roberts' judgment incorrectly?

David H Griffiths
PhD Candidate
Faculty of Law 
University of Auckland
NEW ZEALAND
_________________________________________________________________
Give to a good cause with every e-mail. Join the i’m Initiative from Microsoft.
http://im.live.com/Messenger/IM/Join/Default.aspx?souce=EML_WL_ GoodCause