This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
The case is an appeal from a preliminary injunction concerning whether Congress's Schedule 1 designation under the Controlled Substances Act can exempt the substance from the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).
Background and question before the Court
This case is an appeal from a preliminary injunction issued by the trial court.
Justices asked several preliminary questions, including whether the case involved review of the trial court's injunction (Justice O'Connor) and about the procedural posture as an appeal from a preliminary injunction (Justice Ginsburg).
What each side argues
Petitioners
Petitioners argue that Congress's designation in Schedule 1 is sufficient on its own.
According to Ms. Hollander, the Government's position to defer entirely to Congress's finding is fundamentally and structurally incompatible with RFRA.
According to Mr. Kneedler, the United States has a compelling interest in complying with its treaty obligations, which supports deference to congressional findings.
What happened at oral argument
The case was submitted.
What the Court decided
Why it matters
According to Justice Souter, the case highlights the tension between international treaty obligations and domestic statutes such as the RFRA, and questions the extent of congressional authority to exempt substances under the Controlled Substances Act.
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 43ca75e3a7917ef88eb2-r1-bb1a5773a1db2221.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 21, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.