JUSTICES DEBATE RELIGIOUS DRUG CASE

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court wrangled on Tuesday over whether to let a
small congregation in New Mexico worship with hallucinogenic tea, the first
religious freedom dispute under Chief Justice John Roberts.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor seemed skeptical of the Bush administration's
claim that the tea can be banned, but she may not be around to vote in the
case.

About 130 members of a Brazil-based church have been in a long-running
dispute with federal agents who seized their tea in 1999. The hoasca tea,
which contains an illegal drug known as DMT, is considered sacred to
members of O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao do Vegetal.

The Bush administration contends the tea is not only illegal but
potentially dangerous.

The Supreme Court has dealt with religious drug cases before. Justices
ruled 15 years ago that states could criminalize the use of peyote by
American Indians. But Congress changed the law to allow the sacramental use
in tribal services of peyote, a bitter-tasting cactus that includes the
hallucinogen mescaline.

O'Connor pointed out during Tuesday's argument that Congress changed the
rules. She interrupted the Bush administration lawyer in his opening
statement and peppered him with difficult questions.

Other justices also seemed concerned by the government's claim that an
exception could be made for peyote, but not for hoasca tea.

The man nominated to replace the retiring O'Connor, Samuel Alito, has dealt
with a variety of religion cases as an appeals court judge. He wrote a 1999
opinion allowing Muslim police officers to keep their beards and voted that
year to permit a government holiday display containing a creche, a menorah
and secular symbols of the season.

Alito could be called on to vote in the religious tea case with a new
argument session, if justices are divided 4-4 when O'Connor leaves the court.