In Utah, a federal judge has ordered law enforcement to return the psilocybin mushroom that was seized by police from a religious group in Provo City that used it as a form of sacrament.
Jill N. Parrish, the District Judge of Utah’s district court in Provo and Utah counties as well as one public official was granted a preliminary order by Singularism last month. The founder of the group sued under constitutional grounds as well as under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which passed in Utah last year to protect religion practices against government interference.
Parrish, in his ruling, wrote that laws like this “further instantiate” the religious freedom guarantee so fundamental to our nation. For that religious freedom guarantee to have any meaning, it is important for the law to protect all religions.
She added that “in this litigation, the religious-exercise demands of a minor entheogenic faith put to test the State of Utah’s commitment to freedom of religion.”
In the November raid of Singularism’s spiritual center in Washington, D.C., authorities found the mushrooms, as well as Scripture, which was seized, as per the decision. Singularism filed a lawsuit in state court and, five days after, the state charged the founder of the religion, Bridger Jensen, with criminal drug offenses.
Singularism, in a release of information said that Jensen’s criminal charges are “an act a reprisal.”
The latest decision does not affect the charges but returns the seized mushroom and is an example of Utah RFRA in action.
Singularism stated that the decision of the judge “is likely to cause ripples across the nation as other religious groups who practice entheogenic practices cite the case when they fight their legal battles.” It could affect ongoing debates on the legal status of psychedelic sacraments under the First Amendment, state and federal RFRA protections.
Parrish’s decision of 38 pages granting a preliminary injunction touches the history and background of Singularism as well as the years of religious studies that Jensen has done. Jensen’s role in Singulararism is described as assisting others to “access spiritual insight through psilocybin rituals” rather than being a religious prophet.
Parrish, in the legal analysis of the decision, wrote that Jensen and Singularism had demonstrated how the government’s ban on the use and possession of psilocybin creates “a significant burden on religious practice”.
Simply put, Plaintiffs give a sacramental form of psilocybin sacrament to their pilgrims who embark on their spiritual journey and write their sacred scripture. 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—substantially burdens the free exercise of Singularism and its adherents.”
The judge rejected defendants’ claims that prohibition did not create a substantial burden on sincere religious exercise, writing that the arguments “amount to an assertion that Singularism is not what its adherents claim it is—in other words, that the government is best situated to interpret Singularism and its teachings.”
The court rejected also the argument of government lawyers that religion adherents were insincere. Parrish’s letter stated: “Based on the entire evidence of the record, there is no doubt that Plaintiffs have religious convictions and are sincere.”
In the decision, it is stated that Mr. Jensen’s testimonies about his previous use of psychoactive drugs and the desire to find safer methods of use may initially support the conclusion that he established Singularism in order to avoid the law in order to engage in drug usage otherwise prohibited. The evidence, as a group, weighs in favor of this conclusion.
Parrish noted that it “admittedly appears suspicious that Singularism bills about $1,600 for each tea ceremony” (given that two or four ceremonies are a typical package, participants pay between $3,200 and $6,400). But plaintiffs were also persuaded, writing “the context strongly indicates that Singularism’s motivation is religious, rather than solely financial.”
“If Mr. Jensen were actually motivated by the promise of large profits, he would not have given up a stable six-figure salary to found Singularism and receive a monthly payment that barely puts him past the poverty line,” the order says, adding that a religious group making “large sums of money from its religious activities…does not necessarily mean that its free-exercise claims are disingenuous.”
Parrish ruled the arguments of government that laws prohibiting psilocybin are for public health were not enough to overturn Utah RFRA.
She wrote: “Defendants first argue that the ban on psilocybin serves the government interests of preventing drug abuse, preventing potential harms such as suicide ideation and protecting the general public from illegal drug trafficking.” “The court does not doubt that these interests are compelling in the abstract, but the government must go beyond ‘broadly formulated interests’ like these to satisfy its burden.”
In the February ruling, the court ordered the government to “return any items not returned from Singularism’s spiritual center” and not “interfere with Plaintiffs’ religious use of Psilocybin after the order date until the litigation is completed.”
Singularism’s release stated that it is currently raising money for its legal defense. Jenson’s goal is to keep the criminal case out of court.
In a press release, he stated that “when faced with injustice and when a Government uses their power to silence people who are seeking healing or suppress peaceful religion, you will have no other choice than to stand up.” “Singularism does not want conflict but we won’t back down from our fight for fundamental rights.” We risk losing our freedoms if we do not stand up now.
This new decision comes after the federal government’s watchdog highlighted last year that there was a need to clarify timelines and standardize religious exemption processes for controlled substances.
In an 80-page Government Accountability Office report, the GAO said the Drug Enforcement Administration should enhance the current process for evaluating religious exemptions to psilocybin or other controlled substances. The existing method is unclear on matters such as timing, evaluation, and others.
GAO analyzed psilocybin’s use in the context of Religious Freedom Restoration Act. It found that DEA’s procedures were cumbersome.
GAO reports that “selected stakeholders” have reported a number of barriers in the use and access to psilocybin by religious practitioners under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. For example, DEA created a petitioning process to allow parties to request a religious exemption to the Controlled Substances Act for using controlled substances to fulfill religious practices. DEA’s instructions do not tell petitioners when it will make a decision on their completed petitions.
The GAO reported that in 2019, DEA started a rulemaking procedure around requests for religious exemptions. “But there is no timeline for the issuance of notice or the final regulations.”
“Over an 8-year period—from fiscal year 2016 through January 2024—DEA reported that 24 petitioners requested a religious exemption for various controlled substances,” it added. As of January 20, 2024, DEA had reported that no exemptions were granted for any of the petitions.
While religious exemptions are uncommon, it’s not unheard-of. 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.
Church of the Eagle and the Condor said it had received protection under RFRA for “its spiritual practices concerning Ayahusca” and that the development marked “the very first time in the history of the church that its right to share and import its sacrament was secured without having to go to court.”
CEC filed a lawsuit in 2022 against DEA, Department of Justice (DOJ), Department of Homeland Security(DHS), and Customs and Border Protections (CBP) over DHS seizures of shipments of ayahuasca meant for ceremonial purposes. The group, as well as its members, were also warned that they could be prosecuted by the federal government.
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. According to court documents, a separate request made with IRS for an exemption from tax was initially ignored.
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. A Grassley spokeswoman told MEDCAN24 later that the senator’s support shouldn’t be viewed necessarily as an endorsement for the church’s stance against psychedelics.
You can read the complete ruling that granted Singularism’s preliminary injunction here:
New Mexico bill creating a Psilocybin Treatment Program is approved by the legislature and now heads to Governor Martinez’s desk.