Plaintiff May Move Ahead with Claim That Iowa RFRA Protects His Religious Use of Cannabis

In Olsen v. State of Iowa, (IA Dist. Ct., May 22, 2025), an Iowa state trial court allowed plaintiff, a member of the Ethiopian Zion Coptic Church, to move ahead with his suit seeking an injunction to bar enforcement of Iowa's controlled-substance laws against his religious use of cannabis.  The suit contends that his religious use of marijuana is protected by Iowa's Religious Freedom Restoration Act enacted last year. That Act contains its own definition of "compelling governmental interest." Even though in federal court litigation in 2008 plaintiff lost his claim that the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act exempts his religious use of marijuana from federal and state controlled-substance laws, the Iowa state court rejected the state's argument that this suit should be dismissed on collateral estoppel grounds, saying in part:

The issue raised in this litigation is the same as the Petitioner’s prior actions as cited in the briefing, that being whether the compelling state interest test was met regarding the restriction of the Petitioner’s use of cannabis. This issue was central to the Petitioner’s prior cases. 

The Petitioner argues the legal landscape has changed since the prior rulings were issued. Collateral estoppel does not apply if controlling facts or legal principles have changed significantly since the Petitioner's prior judgments. Olsen v. Mukasey, 541 F.3d at 831. The court finds that based on this particular argument, that the Petitioner’s should not be dismissed at this time....

In this case, the Petitioner is asserting the claim under Iowa Code Chapter 675. Although it is markedly similar to the federal RFRA and the Petitioner has made similar unsuccessful claims in the past, this court cannot conclude to a certainty that there is no possibility of success under the newly-passed Iowa RFRA. 

Plaintiff, who is litigating pro se, issued a press release announcing the decision.

Eviction of Church Did Not Violate RLUIPA

In Schworck v. City of Madison, (WD WI, May 6, 2021), a Wisconsin federal district court dismissed a suit for damages brought against city officials by The Lion of Judah House of Rastafari and its founders who claim that their eviction from their leased premises violated their rights under RLUIPA, the free exercise clause, the equal protection clause and other provisions. The premises served as a homeless shelter, and a location for the church which distributed cannabis to members in exchange for donations. The lessees were never able to obtain a certificate of occupancy allowing them to operate the former retail store site as a church. The court said in part:

[N]ot only have plaintiffs failed to link to any land use regulation a substantial burden, but they have failed to submit evidence of a substantial burden on their religious practices altogether, thus defeating both plaintiffs’ RLUIPA and First Amendment claims on the merits....

In particular ... plaintiffs’ asserted substantial burden on their religious practices is the October 16, 2019, eviction from the property. Critically, they do not take the position that (1) compliance with the City’s municipal ordinances would violate their religious beliefs, (2) the costs and inconvenience of compliance posed a substantial burden, or (3) the uncontested municipal court proceedings created a substantial burden on their ability to exercise their religious beliefs....

[E]ven assuming that defendants or any City officials treated plaintiffs’ unfairly during the permitting or inspection process (and again, the evidence does not support such a finding), a reasonable trier of fact would have no basis to conclude that treatment impacted the October 16, 2019, eviction from the property on this record.

Wisconsin State Journal has more on the decision.

Idaho Supreme Court: Marijuana Ban Does Not Violate Free Exercise Rights

In State of Idaho v. Heath, (ID Sup. Ct., April 8, 2021), the Idaho Supreme Court held that the state's prohibition of marijuana does not violate defendant-appellant's right to religious liberty.  The issue arose as appellant attempted to recover a pipe and bong made from elk antler, seized as contraband (along with marijuana), during a police traffic stop. The court said in part:

... Heath contends that the provisions of the [Controlled Substances Act] prohibiting the use of marijuana are not neutral and generally applicable. However, Heath's arguments do not support his conclusion. Certainly, the prohibition of marijuana under the CSA impairs Heath's ability to consume marijuana, which he attests is an important element of his belief system.... [W]e will not question the sincerity of his beliefs. But the impact of the CSA on Heath's ability to legally practice his beliefs is not the dispositive issue. Rather, the issue is whether the CSA proscribes religious use of marijuana while permitting non-religious use, or has been designed so that it applies primarily to religiously motivated conduct..... Heath has made no such argument.

Colorado Marijuana Ban May Be Applied To Cannabis Ministry

 In People v. Torline, (CO App., Nov. 12, 2020), a Colorado state appellate court held that Colorado’s law barring possession and growing of marijuana does not violate the state or federal Free Exercise rights of defendant, an ordained minister who grows the plants as part of his Cannabis Ministry. The court said in part:

[T]he incorporation of marijuana and marijuana concentrate into religious rituals is subject to regulation on equal terms with secular marijuana use. Colorado law does not penalize such conduct because of its religious character.

Free Exercise Claim As To Marijuana Use Is Rejected

In State of Ohio v. Cook, (OH App., Feb. 10, 2020), an Ohio state appellate court rejected a defendant's claim that his use of marijuana-- which he claimed was part of his Shamanism religion-- violated his free exercise rights. The court said in part:

Even assuming that Cook’s “religious” beliefs are sincerely held, and even assuming that the law restricts his practice, there is certainly a compelling state interest in regulating the use of Schedule I controlled substances. Moreover, the drug laws are facially religion-neutral, and do not target any specific sect of any religion. Thus we find that they are narrowly tailored.... For these reasons we cannot find that the trial court erred in overruling Cook’s suppression motions. 

Challenge To Attempted Search of Church Is Dismissed

In Aguilera v. City of Colorado Springs, (D CO, July 23, 2019), a Colorado federal district court dismissed a suit brought by plaintiff who leases two rooms to the Green Faith Ministry. The suit grew out of an attempt by city authorities to conduct an occupancy check of the building leased by the Ministry, apparently suspecting that it was a retail marijuana outlet. Authorities took photos of license plates, but never gained access to the building. The court held that plaintiff lacks standing to bring most of her claims:

Plaintiff complains that Defendants ... deterred others from entering the building... She alleges that Defendant Vargason attempted a warrantless entry of the Green Faith Ministry building.... She contends that the City of Colorado Springs is entangled financially with many Christian organizations and targeted Green Faith Ministry.... Plaintiff fails to allege how this conduct, directed to other individuals and to the Green Faith Ministry entity, harmed her.

The court went on to find a few actions that did impact plaintiff, including one of the defendants telling her "to Praise the Lord." The court concluded that this did not violate the Establishment Clause or plaintiff's free exercise rights.

Church Sues Over Cannabis Raid

Redheaded Blackbelt reported yesterday:

A church called Redwood Spiritual Healing Ministry filed a lawsuit Thursday, June 27 against the County of Humboldt and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) alleging violations of its 1st Amendment right to religious freedom as well as due process violations when a multiple agency task force destroyed cannabis as well as private property during the execution of a search warrant. The case further alleges that the County of Humboldt may have withheld relevant information from a judge by having CDFW file the Affidavit for the search warrant without informing the judge that the property in question may be a church under the law.

The full text of the complaint in Redwoods Spiritual Healing Ministry v. Humboldt County, California, (CA Super. Ct., filed 6/27/2019) embedded at the end of the news report on the lawsuit.

Rastafarian's Challenge To Marijuana Enforcement Is Rejected

In Lepp v. Yuba County, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39855 (ED CA, March 11, 2019), a California federal magistrate judge recommended dismissing plaintiffs' contention that his ability to practice his Rastafarian religion was substantially burdened when state authorities seized his marijuana, and when they failed to promulgate a religious exemption to allow marijuana use.

Rastafarian Minister's Trespass Arrest did Not Violate His Free Exercise Rights

In Brown v. Jordan, (WD AR, Feb. 14, 2019), a Rastafarian minister sued over his arrest that grew out of his picketing for passage of a medical marijuana issue on the 2016 Arkansas ballot. The court rejected his claim that his arrest violated his free exercise rights, saying in part:

In this case, Plaintiff was advocating for the passage of the Medical Marijuana Act. While the Act's passage would, in his view, pave the way for his church to lawfully use marijuana in its ceremonies, his advocacy did not itself involve his exercise of a religious belief. Furthermore, the officers who arrested him appeared at the Flash Market in response to a claim that Plaintiff was trespassing, as he had remained on the Flash Market property after having been asked to leave and was bothering the customers. No action the officers took on October 16, 2016 inhibited Plaintiff from practicing or exercising his religious beliefs. Therefore, no free exercise claim is stated, and this claim is dismissed.

Suit Charges Mormon Church With Dominating Utah In Change To Marijuana Initiative

A lawsuit was filed Wednesday in a Utah state trial court challenging the Utah legislature's enactment of H.B. 3001 which weakens a medical marijuana initiative passed by Utah voters last month. According to an AP report, the new law, among other things, bans a number of marijuana edibles; bars people from growing their own marijuana if they live far from a dispensary; and narrows the list of eligible medical conditions for which the drug can be used. The original Initiative was opposed by the Mormon Church, and H.B.. 3001 reflects a compromise designed to prevent the legislature from completely repealing the Initiative measure. The complaint (full text) in Epilepsy Association of Utah v. Herbert, (UT Dist. Ct., filed 12/5/2018), alleges in part:

This is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief arising from, first, the unconstitutional violation by the Utah Legislature of the constitutional right of the People to directly pass legislation through the initiative process under Article VI, Section 1 of the Utah Constitution and, second, the unconstitutional domination of the State, and interference with the State’s functions, by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (“the Church”), in violation of Article I, Section 4 of the Utah Constitution.

Art. I, Sec. 4 of the state constitution provides: "There shall be no union
of Church and State, nor shall any church dominate the State or interfere with its functions."

Suit Seeking Cannabis Exemption For Rastafari Moves Ahead In Iowa

An Iowa state trial court has denied a motion by the Iowa Board of Pharmacy to dismiss a suit brought against it claiming that it abused its discretion when it refused to recommend to the state legislature an exemption for religious use of cannabis by Rastafari.  (Order in Olsen v. Iowa Board of Pharmacy, (IA Dist. Ct., Nov. 16, 2018). Links to all the pleadings in the case as well as to audio of oral arguments are available here. (See prior related posting.)

RFRA Defense To Virgin Islands Marijuana Prosecution Fails

In People of the Virgin Islands v. Felix, (VI Super. Ct., Sept. 11, 2018), a Virgin Island trial court avoided deciding the interesting question of whether RFRA applies to the Virgin Islands even though it does not apply to states. Instead the court held that even if RFRA does apply, the Virgin Islands' ban on possession of marijuana with intent to distribute would survive a RFRA challenge by defendant, a Rastafarian.  The court concluded that both the "substantial burden" and "compelling interest" tests under RFRA were not met.  The court said in part:

The defendant might have been successful in defending against a charge of simple possession of marijuana since marijuana is important to Rastafarian religious practice.  But there exists in the record no evidence establishing that the distribution of marijuana is a requirement of Rastafarianism.

Furthermore, the circumstances leading to the Defendant's arrest were clearly unrelated to his religious beliefs. At the time of his arrest, the Defendant was an employee of the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands and allegedly used the Superior Court's corporate account to have 127.5 grams of marijuana transported — without the knowledge of the Superior Court — from St. Croix to himself on St. Thomas. The Defendant received the drugs at about eleven-thirty in the morning during his shift....

Iowa Pharmacy Board's Refusal To Recommend Cannabis Exception Is Challenged

A petition (full text) for review of a July 18 decision by the Iowa Board of Pharmacy has been filed in an Iowa state trial court.  In Olsen v. Iowa Board of Pharmacy, (IA Dist. Ct., filed 8/15/2018), petitioner contends that the Pharmacy Board abused its discretion when it refused to recommend to the state legislature that an exemption be added to the state drug laws to exempt religious use of cannabis by Rastafari.  The Board took the position that it lacks expertise to evaluate the use of controlled substances for religious purposes. A number of posts on the issue are at Carl Olsen's Blog.

Judge Authorizes Shut-Down of Cannabis-Based Church

A Riverside, California trial court judge last week authorized the city of Jurupa Valley to close down the Vault Church of Open Faith, a cannabis-based church that lists the prices for various kinds of marijuana online. According to the Press-Enterprise, the Vault's lead minister,  Gilbert Aguirre, who has no formal religious training typically leads services which often include smoking or eating marijuana products. Jurupa Valley bans marijuana businesses of all kinds.

Suit Claims Utah Medical Marijuana Initiative Violates Mormons' Religious Freedom

The Salt Lake Tribune reports that yesterday a suit was filed in Utah state court seeking, on free exercise and free speech grounds, to remove Utah's medical marijuana initiative from the November ballot.  The suit, citing the U.S. Supreme Court's recent Masterpiece Cakeshop decision, challenges the provision (Sec. 26-60b-110) in the initiative (full text) that bars refusals to rent to a medical marijuana card holder. The complaint reads in part:

In the United States of America, members of all religions, including the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints have a constitutional right to exercise their religious beliefs. This includes the right not to consort with, be around, or do business with people engaging in activities which their religion finds repugnant....

The State of Utah is attempting to compel the speech of Utah landowners by suppressing their ability to speak out against cannabis use and consumption by only renting to tenants who do not possess or consume cannabis," the complaint reads, “and who support their viewpoints in opposition against cannabis possession and consumption.

In the suit, plaintiff contends that his "religious beliefs include a strict adherence to a code of health which precludes the consumption and possession of mind-altering drugs, substances and chemicals, which includes cannabis and its various derivatives." Apparently this is based on interpretation of the Mormon Word of Wisdom health code.

Indiana Court Rejects RFRA Exemption For Sacramental Marijuana Use

In First Church of Cannabis, Inc. v. State of Indiana, (IN Cir. Ct, July 6, 2018), an Indiana trial court judge rejected claims by the First Church of Cannabis that under the state's Religious Freedom Restoration Act it is entitled to an exemption from the state's law relating to the possession and use of marijuana when it is used for sacramental purposes. The court refused to enjoin state enforcement against the church, concluding that the state has a compelling interest in preventing marijuana use. The Hill reports on the decision.

City Sues To Close Down Church Allegedly Operating As Marijuana Dispensary

Los Angeles Times reported on Tuesday that Newport Beach, California officials have filed a civil suit in state court seeking an injunction to close down Church of the Holy Grail. The suit claims that the Church is operating as an illegal marijuana dispensary. The suit also seeks a $25,000 civil penalty. Holy Grail's attorney says that use of marijuana at the site is a lawful exercise of religion.

Injunction Denied Again In Church Founder's Suit Over Marijuana Cutivation

In Harris v. City of Clearlake, (ND CA, Dec. 12, 2017), a California federal district court for the second time (see prior posting) denied a preliminary injunction, and dismissed with leave to amend, a religious discrimination suit brought by the founder of the Church of the Greater Faith & Redemption. The Church cultivates cannabis for sacramental purposes.  Plaintiff claims that his free exercise rights were infringed by the issuance against him of an administrative citation for violating a city ordinance regulating the growing of marijuana, and threats to close down the church's activities if plaintiff did not comply.  The court held that plaintiff had not shown how his exercise of religion was burdened.  Moreover, the ordinance at issue is a neutral law of general applicability.

UPDATE: A second amended complaint was dismissed in 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17742 (Feb. 2, 2018) for containing no new allegations.

Court Will Not Enjoin Medical Marijuana Limits In Suit By Minister

In Harris v. City of Clearlake, (ND CA, Oct. 10, 2017), a California federal district court refused to issue a preliminary injunction to prevent the city of Clearlake, California from enforcing its regulations on growing  of medical marijuana against a church that cultivated cannabis for sacramental purposes. The court denied the claim by the church itself because it was not represented by an attorney, and the church's minister who filed the case pro se cannot represent the church since he is not a member of the bar.  As to the claim by the church's minister on his own behalf, the court concluded that the city's regulations are a neutral law of general applicability, and that the minister failed to show that enforcement infringes on his right to use marijuana as a religious sacrament:

[T]he ordinance permits Harris to cultivate six living marijuana plants subject to permitting, enclosure and spatial restrictions. Harris has not shown that six plants are insufficient to meet his personal religious needs, or that he cannot obtain marijuana plants to satisfy his religious needs through other means.

Suit By Cannabis Church To Enjoin Prosecution Is Dismissed

In Armstrong v. Kilmartin, (D RI, May 17, 2017), a Rhode Island federal district court dismissed a suit to enjoin a state court criminal prosecution against clergy of the "Healing Church" which uses cannabis in its rituals. Plaintiffs say they are trying to protect a religious cannabis garden from law enforcement officials.  The suit claimed that the state and state officials engaged in religious discrimination and infringed free exercise rights of church leaders. The court dismissed this part of the lawsuit under the Younger abstention doctrine.  The court also refused to exercise ancillary jurisdiction to decide a separate claim against a religious leader over the ownership of a religious painting.