The 2006 Supreme Court case that protects religious ayahuasca use under federal law.
Gonzales v. O Centro is the 2006 Supreme Court case that lets a small church use ayahuasca tea as a sacrament under federal law. The full name is Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal, cited as 546 U.S. 418. The Court ruled for the church by a unanimous 8–0 vote.
The church is called the União do Vegetal, or UDV. Its members drink a tea known as hoasca, another name for ayahuasca. The tea contains DMT, which is illegal under federal law. The case asked whether the government could stop the church from using it.
The Court said no, at least for this church. It found the federal government had not met the strict legal test that protects religious practice. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion.
The case began in 1999 when US Customs agents seized a shipment of hoasca headed to the UDV. The agents acted because the tea contains DMT, a Schedule I controlled substance. The church then sued to protect its sacrament.
The UDV has roots in Brazil, where the tea is legal for religious use. Its US branch had only a few hundred members at the time. The church argued that drinking hoasca is the central act of its faith.
A federal district court agreed to protect the church while the case went forward. It issued a preliminary injunction barring the government from enforcing the drug law against the UDV's sacramental tea. The appeals court upheld that order, and the government took the case to the Supreme Court.
The case was about a preliminary injunction, not a final verdict. A preliminary injunction is a temporary order that protects one side while a lawsuit plays out. So the question was narrow: had the church shown it was likely to win under RFRA?
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) sets a high bar before the federal government can burden a sincere religious practice. Congress passed RFRA in 1993. It requires courts to use "strict scrutiny," the toughest test in constitutional law.
Under RFRA, once a person shows a federal law substantially burdens their religion, the government must prove two things:
The UDV easily showed a substantial burden. Banning the tea meant banning the church's core sacrament. So the burden shifted to the government to justify the ban under both parts of the test.
The government lost because it argued in general terms instead of proving harm from this church's specific use. It claimed the Controlled Substances Act must apply uniformly, with no exceptions. The Court rejected that blanket argument.
The government gave three main reasons to ban the tea. The Court found each one fell short at this stage:
A key point sank the government's case. Federal law already allowed the Native American Church to use peyote, another Schedule I psychedelic. If the government could make that exception work, the Court reasoned, it could not claim a single exception for the UDV was impossible.
Gonzales v. O Centro did not create a general right to use ayahuasca. This is the most misread part of the case. The win protected one church under its own facts — it was not a green light for everyone.
DMT stayed Schedule I after the ruling. The decision changed nothing in the Controlled Substances Act itself. It only barred enforcement against one specific church's sacramental tea.
Here is the practical catch that competitors' summaries usually skip. Any other group that wants legal ayahuasca must either sue and win its own RFRA case, or petition the DEA for a religious exemption. Both paths are slow, costly, and far from guaranteed. The Supreme Court win did not remove that burden — it set the standard others must now meet on their own.
O Centro and the peyote exemption protect religious psychedelic use in two very different ways. O Centro is a court win under RFRA for one church. The peyote exemption is a written rule that protects Native American Church members nationwide. The table compares the two routes.
| Feature | O Centro (UDV / ayahuasca) | Peyote (Native American Church) |
|---|---|---|
| Legal source | Court ruling under RFRA (1993 law) | Federal statute and DEA regulation |
| Who is covered | One church (the UDV), case by case | Members of the Native American Church, nationwide |
| How a new group qualifies | Must win its own lawsuit or DEA petition | Written exemption already on the books |
| Substance | Hoasca / ayahuasca (contains DMT) | Peyote (contains mescaline) |
| Certainty for members | Strong for the UDV; unsettled for others | Long-established and clear |
When each route matters: the peyote exemption gives Native American Church members a clear, standing protection without going to court. The RFRA route from O Centro is what every other faith group must use — and it puts the burden on them to prove their case. For the peyote side, see our peyote guide and the AIRFA exemption it explains.
Gonzales v. O Centro set the legal standard for religious psychedelic claims, but real-world access stayed narrow. It confirmed that RFRA can protect a faith group's sacrament. Yet it left each new group to prove its own case.
Some Santo Daime congregations later won protection for their own ayahuasca use in separate lawsuits, relying on O Centro as precedent. These wins came one church at a time, in court, not from a single nationwide rule.
The DEA's petition process, built after O Centro, has been the main sticking point. Critics say petitioners must disclose their activity with no guarantee against charges, and must stop their practice while they wait. The 2024 GAO report urged the DEA to set clear timeframes and standards.
For most people, O Centro does not make ayahuasca legal where they live. It protects specific churches, not the general public. Bringing or drinking DMT-containing tea outside a protected group still risks federal charges.
If you are weighing travel or a ceremony, check the law first. See our guide to where DMT is legal and the related federal-access angle in the Right to Try Act explainer. To find a vetted setting abroad where ayahuasca is legal, our retreat finder can help.
No. The 2006 ruling only protected one church, the União do Vegetal (UDV), under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. It did not legalize ayahuasca generally. Any other group must still win its own DEA exemption or its own lawsuit. DMT, the active compound in ayahuasca, remains a Schedule I controlled substance under federal law.
The Supreme Court ruled 8–0 on February 21, 2006 that the federal government could not bar the UDV church from drinking sacramental hoasca (ayahuasca tea) during the case. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion. The Court held the government failed to prove a compelling interest in blocking the church's use, as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) requires.
Under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the government must use strict scrutiny when a federal law substantially burdens a sincere religious practice. It must show a compelling interest and prove the law is the least restrictive means of serving that interest. In O Centro, the government could not meet that test for the UDV's specific sacramental use.
Only a small number of groups have legal protection. The UDV won protection in the 2006 case, and some Santo Daime congregations later won protection in separate lawsuits. Other groups must petition the DEA for a religious exemption or sue. As of 2024, the DEA had not granted a single exemption through its petition process, and many petitions sat pending for years.
Hoasca, also spelled ayahuasca, is a brewed tea the UDV uses as a sacrament. It contains DMT (dimethyltryptamine), a Schedule I controlled substance under the federal Controlled Substances Act. Because the tea contains DMT, customs agents seized a shipment in 1999, which started the lawsuit.
The peyote exemption is a written statutory and regulatory rule that protects Native American Church members across the country. The O Centro protection came from a court ruling under RFRA for one specific church. The Supreme Court actually pointed to the existing peyote exemption as proof the government can make case-by-case exceptions.
O Centro protects specific churches, not the general public. If you want a vetted, legal setting, start with our tools below.
→ Find a vetted ayahuasca retreat · Check legal status by state
Get Gonzales v. O Centro (Ayahuasca) updates
New votes, rules, court rulings, and access changes for Gonzales v. O Centro (Ayahuasca) — delivered when they happen.
← Back to all psychedelic laws
Suggest a tool, topic, or improvement that would make this site more useful.