Last week, the US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania issued an interesting opinion in an appeal of a federal Magistrate Judge's opinion in United States v. Forchion, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14791 (July 22, 2005). Defendants who are Rastafarians, were convicted under federal law of smoking marijuana in Philadelphia's Independence National Historical Park. 36 CFR 2.35 prohibits the possession of any controlled substance in a National Park. Defendants claimed that smoking marijuana is a "sacrament" in their religion, akin to a Christian's consumption of wine at communion. They claimed that their conviction violated their Free Exercise rights as protected by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The court upheld their conviction, holding that "With so many alternative places to practice Rastafarianism, the ban on marijuana possession in national parks does not force [defendants] to choose between abandoning their faith and facing criminal prosecution."
In sentencing defendants, the Magistrate Judge placed them on probation, but imposed a number of conditions that totally prohibit them from possessing or using controlled substances. The court vacated the sentence and remanded the case to the Magistrate Judge to consider the "thorny constitutional and statutory questions that the six conditions raise".
One aspect of this decision merits comment. While the court is correct that the challenged regulation does not preclude defendants using marijuana in their homes, places of worship or other non-federal locations, those uses would likely violate state law and, after City of Boerne v. Flores, RFRA would not protect defendants in a state law prosecution.
