Although the Government tries to limit the potential impact of its legal theories on other cases, in fact those theories would pull the heart out of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which Congress enacted to ensure that believers of all faiths may worship and practice their religions without unnecessary restriction from federal laws and regulations. Specifically, in enacting RFRA, Congress determined that the "inalienable" right of free exercise of religion (42 U.S.C. 2000bb(a)(1)) should include the right to exercise one's faith even in the face of generally applicable laws, and that this right, although not absolute, should be given great respect by the federal government. Put differently, Congress wished to ensure that its own enactments would not be construed or applied to restrict religious conduct substantially, except in cases of necessity.

It is unquestioned that in prohibiting the importation of hoasca tea and threatening members of the UDV with criminal prosecution, the Government threatens to destroy the UDV's religious worship...RFRA demands a strong showing of public necessity to justify such a severe burden on religious practice.

The Government's suggestion that carving out a RFRA exemption from the drug laws would represent judicial activism is entirely backward. This case does not involve courts ordering an exception to an Act of Congress based on general language in the Constitution. It involves an exception to the Controlled Substances Act based on another Act of Congress that expressly calls for exceptions to federal statutes. The case involves two federal statutes, and each must be taken seriously. It is not judicial activism to read the two together and rely on one to create an exception to theother. Judicial activism would be refusing to enforce RFRA.

The judgment of the court of appeals should be affirmed.