Home The Supreme Court's DecisionPress Summary Frequently Asked Questions Downloads and Links Amicus Curiae Filings Media Info and Inquiries UDV Website

Amicus Curiae Filings

In support of the UDV's case before the United States Supreme Court, nine different amicus curiae (friend of the court) legal briefs have been submitted, by a number of individuals and organizations, each addressing different aspects of this important legal case. The ability to access a separate page where each of these briefs may be downloaded is provided below, along with a brief description of the legal issues that are addressed in each brief.

  1. A brief was submitted on behalf of a coalition of religious and civil liberties organizations including The National Association of Evangelicals, The National Council of Presbyterian Churches, The Baptist Joint Committee, The American Civil Liberties Union, and The Foundation for the Free Exercise of Religion. The brief argues that this case was correctly decided by the District Court whose decision should be affirmed by the Supreme Court on appeal.

  2. A brief submitted by The Conference of Catholic Bishops asking the Supreme Court to use its authority to affirm the constitutional guarantee of the free exercise of religion in the UDV case.

  3. A brief submitted by The Becket Foundation for Religious Liberty representing itself, The American Jewish Committee, The American Jewish Congress, The Association on American Indian Affairs, and The Unitarian Universalist Association, and others, asking the Supreme Court to reject any arguments made by another group of amici, questioning the constitutionality of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

  4. A brief submitted by The International Academy for Freedom of Religion and Belief, in support of the UDV's position, educating the court with respect to the important international law and treaty issues raised by government in this case on appeal.

  5. A brief submitted by The Liberty Legal Institute in support of the UDV also addressing the responsibilities of the United States Government under the treaties and international law issues raised in this case.

  6. A brief submitted on behalf of a group of scientists and public policy experts in support of the UDV, arguing that they have reviewed the medical evidence presented in the case and concluded that the record overwhelmingly supports the district court's findings.

  7. A brief submitted on behalf of the Council on Spiritual Practices and a group of distinguished professors in the area of world religion in support of the UDV. The brief was written to educate the court with respect to the venerable history of plant sacraments (like the UDV's hoasca) over centuries of human religious history.

  8. A brief submitted by a group of research scientists and public policy experts arguing that the Controlled Substance Act and the international drug treaties do not apply to the UDV's religious use of its plant sacrament.

  9. A brief submitted by Professor Douglas Laycock, former advisor to Congress on issues of religious freedom, in support of the district court's decision in favor of the UDV. Prof. Laycock's brief argues that the district court was correct to grant the UDV's request for a preliminary injunction under RFRA.

In filing amicus briefs under the rules of the Supreme Court amici must affirm that the litigating parties have consented to the filing of the brief, none of the counsel for the parties authored the brief in whole or in part, and no one other than amicus or its counsel contributed money or services to the preparation and submission of the brief.