The U.S. Supreme Court case Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General, et al. v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal et al., 2005 revolved around the issue of religious freedom versus federal drug laws. The plaintiff was a New Mexico-based branch of the Brazilian church União do Vegetal (UDV), which uses a sacramental tea containing dimethyltryptamine (DMT), a substance banned under the Controlled Substances Act and international treaty obligations by United States law enforcement agencies for its hallucinogenic properties in their religious ceremonies. The UDV sued for an injunction against this prohibition after customs officials intercepted one of their shipments in 1999, arguing that it violated their rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). The government argued that they had compelling interests in protecting public health and preventing diversion to non-religious use. In unanimous decision delivered by Chief Justice Roberts on February 21, 2006, the court ruled in favor of UDV stating that RFRA requires government to demonstrate compelling interest when burdening sincere religious practices and must also show least restrictive means were used.

In the dissenting opinion for Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, Justice John Paul Stevens argued that the Court's majority had failed to give due deference to Congress and its judgment on matters of public health and safety. He contended that the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) was designed with a comprehensive approach in mind, aiming to curb drug abuse by controlling all aspects of drug supply chains - including manufacture, distribution, and possession. By allowing an exception for religious use of hoasca tea containing DMT (a Schedule I controlled substance), he believed it undermined this comprehensive scheme. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential difficulties in enforcing such exceptions without leading to broader unauthorized use or diversion into illegal channels.