Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (2006), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that, under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, the government had failed to show a compelling interest in prosecuting religious adherents for drinking a sacramental tea containing a Schedule I controlled substance.

§ 2000bb, a law passed by Congress in direct response to Employment Division v. Smith (1990), in which the Supreme Court held that unemployment benefits could be denied to two Native Americans fired for using Peyote.

In filing suit, the UDV sought a preliminary injunction preventing the federal government from barring their usage of hoasca.

In August 2002, U.S. District Chief Judge James Aubrey Parker granted the church's motion, finding it was likely to succeed on the merits of its claim under RFRA.

[7] One-hour of oral arguments were heard on November 1, 2005, where Edwin Kneedler, the Deputy Solicitor General of the United States, appeared for the government.

The Supreme Court ruled that the government failed to demonstrate a compelling interest in applying the Controlled Substances Act to the UDV's sacramental use of the tea.

[16] Bronfman next sought to move the church's services from the yurt outside his home to a new building in Arroyo Hondo, Santa Fe County, New Mexico, prompting opposition from neighbors.