In a case challenging the prosecution of Provo City religious leaders who use psychedelic mushrooms as sacrament, a federal judge ruled that Utah officials and state officials were wrong.
The ruling comes three months after U.S. district judge Jill N. Parrish approved Singularism’s motion for temporary injunction, and ordered the police to hand back psilocybin seized during a raid on its spiritual center last year.
There are still two issues to resolve. The government’s motion for dismissal was rejected. Singulararism’s request for an injunction against a lawsuit was also granted.
The founder of the group initially filed a lawsuit on constitutional grounds, and also under state Religious Freedom Restoration Acts (RFRA), passed in last year to protect religions from government interference.
The order of return was issued by the court after a raid, during which police seized both the scripture and the mushrooms. Singulararism was sued in state courts, and the state then filed drug charges against Bridger Jensen.
The judge stated in her most recent order that “the irreparable harm to Plaintiffs” was not just theoretical. The court noted that, based on the evidence in the case, it had found the prosecution to be brought in bad faith in an effort to harass the Plaintiffs because of their entheogenic practices.
It is clear that the prosecution of Singularism has caused it to lose many practitioners and affiliates. To force Plaintiffs wait for the completion of the criminal proceeding to protect their right to freedom of expression and association would be to issue a death sentence to their fledgling religion. The court, therefore grants Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction until the final judgement in this court. This will prevent further proceedings against Mr. Jensen for violating Utah Controlled Substances Act prohibitions regarding psilocybin.
Parrish also emphasized that Utah law creates an exception for the use of psilocybin in a medical, secular setting. This exemption should also be applied to religious practices.
According to defendants, the government’s interest in the Act was to protect people from harmful substances and their abuse.
She said that a religious exemption could undermine Plaintiffs’ interests: psilocybin may have been contaminated, facilitators may not recognize contraindicating drugs, and recreational users may pretend to be religious practitioners to get psilocybin to use for nonreligious, illegal purposes. These same risks exist in the secular exclusion, as well, since it does not impose any sourcing, testing or chain-of custody requirements on the psilocybin that is administered by healthcare providers.
She also said that a law that “categorically prohibits the possession and use of the psilocybin sacrament—thereby preventing Singularism’s adherents from pursuing their spiritual voyages and hindering them from producing their sacred scripture—not only burdens but substantially burdens the free exercise of Singularism and its adherents.”
The judge remarked that this argument “misses entirely the point and border on being dishonest.”
She said, “Defendants are fixated on the criminal prosecution of Plaintiffs as the cause of their burden when in fact the Utah Controlled Substances Act prohibits psilocybin usage directly.” The Defendants wouldn’t have any basis to charge Mr. Jensen if the statute didn’t prohibit Plaintiffs psilocybin usage. “A statute may substantially restrict religious activity.”
In the order, defendants were also criticized for their claim that the RFRA does not apply to them because they haven’t imposed any criminal sanctions against the leaders of Singularism or its congregants. It wasn’t the judge who thought that.
The implications of the Defendants argument, she added, are “astonishing”.
If the State of Utah were to make a second attempt at Prohibition, they would pass a new law that prohibited the distribution, possession or use of alcoholic drinks, except for red wines administered medically by healthcare systems. Suppose that Catholic Priests in Provo who believed themselves protected by Utah RFRA distributed wine at Mass, and were therefore criminally charged by Utah County.
The theory of the Defendants is that, so long as priests are not penalized, the exercise of their religion will not be significantly affected, whether by the prohibition on alcoholic drinks or the criminal prosecution. It is not necessary to explain the absurdity of this argument. “In any case, the court concluded that Plaintiffs had alleged an unreasonable burden on their freedom of exercise. This established their primary claim.”
Last year, a federal government monitor highlighted the importance of a clearer timetable and standards for religious exemptions in relation to controlled substances.
In an 80-page Government Accountability Office report, the GAO said the Drug Enforcement Administration should enhance the current process for granting religious exceptions to psilocybin or other controlled substances. The existing method is unclear on matters such as timing, evaluation, and others.
GAO examined psilocybin’s use in the context of Religious Freedom Restoration Act. It found that DEA’s procedures were cumbersome.
While religious exemptions are not common, they do exist. In a settlement reached last year with several Arizona nonprofits and government agencies, the group was allowed to import and use Ayahuasca in religious ceremonies.
It was claimed that the Church of the Eagle and the Condor, or CEC for short, had been the “first non-Christian Church to be protected by the RFRA in its Ayahusca spiritual practices.” They also said that this is the “first time ever that a Church’s Right to Import and Share its Sacrament without Going to Trial has Been Secured.”
Months after the settlement, however, the federal government said the agreement was irrelevant in the case of a separate psychedelic church in Iowa that wants to incorporate ayahuasca into its ceremonies.
That church—the Iowaska Church of Healing—first sent its petition to DEA asking for an exemption around ayahuasca use in 2019. Court documents indicate that a request to the Internal Revenue Service for an exemption on taxation was not initially responded to.
The church found an unusual ally in anti-drug U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), who court filings said was instrumental in expediting the regulatory appeals process back in 2021. Grassley’s spokesperson told MEDCAN24 that his help should not be interpreted as an endorsement by the church of its stance on psychedelics.
Below you can read the order of the Utah judge in the psilocybin case.