Church May Move Ahead with RFRA Challenge to Limits on Its Use of Ayahuasca

In Church of the Celestial Heart v. Garland, (ED CA, Jan. 9, 2023), a California federal magistrate judge refused to dismiss a suit under RFRA challenging the application of the Controlled Substances Act to use of sacramental tea by a church whose beliefs are based on the Santo Daime religion. The court concluded that plaintiffs had adequately alleged that application of the CSA would substantially burden a sincere religious exercise, saying in part:

Similar to part of Defendants’ arguments above relating to standing, and additionally the alternative request for stay below, Defendants argue under 12(b)(6) that the complaint fails to state a claim because, fundamentally, all of Plaintiffs’ grievances stem from their failure to obtain, much less apply for, a registration through DEA’s exemption process. Defendants argue that to prevail on the RFRA claim, Plaintiffs must demonstrate how DEA’s exemption process substantially burdens their allegedly sincere exercise of religion, and Plaintiffs have not attempted to plead such burden.

The Court rejects this argument....

The court also refused to stay proceedings and require the Church to apply for a religious exemption from the Drug Enforcement Administration before reaching a decision on plaintiff's claims. 

11th Circuit: Appeal of DEA's Denial of Religious Exemption to Controlled Substances Act Must Be in Circuit Court

In Soul Quest Chruch of Mother Earth, Inc. v. Attorney General, (11th Cir., Dec. 18, 2023), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, held that an appeal of the DEA's denial of a religious exemption to a church so it could legally use ayahuasca (a sacramental tea) needs to be made to a Circuit Court of Appeals, not to a federal district court. The issue turned on whether the DEA's denial was made "under" the statutory provisions of the Controlled Substances Act, or whether it was made "under" the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.  21 USC §877 requires appeals of final decisions made under the Control and Enforcement subchapter of the CSA to go to federal circuit courts.  Judge Newsom dissenting argued that the decision was made "under" the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and so was appealable to a federal district court.

Hawaii Federal Court Rejects RFRA Claims In 2 Cannabis Cases

This week the Hawaii federal district court rejected Religious Freedom Restoration Act claims in two separate marijuana cases:

United States v. Christie, (D HI, Dec. 30, 2013), involves a motion in limine in the prosecution of Roger Christie, the founder and leader of The Hawaiian Cannabis Ministry, and Sherryanne L. St. Cyr, an ordained minister in the THC Ministry, who are charged with manufacturing, distributing and possessing marijuana.  In one opinion (full text) the court held that Defendants had established a prima facie case for raising a Religious Freedom Restoration Act defense.  In a second opinion issued the same day (full text), the court held the government had established a compelling interest in enforcing the Controlled Substances Act against defendants to prevent diversion of substantial amounts of marijuana to non-adherents of the church. Finding also that the prosecution is the least restrictive means to further that compelling interest, the court held that defendants ultimately are not entitled to present a RFRA defense at trial.

In Oklevueha Native American Church of Hawaii, Inc. v. Holder, (D HI, Dec. 31, 2013), the court dismissed a suit brought by the Native American Church of Hawaii and its founder Rex "Raging Bull" Mooney seeking a declaratory judgment decreeing that criminal prosecution under the federal Controlled Substances Act for consuming, cultivating, possessing or distributing of cannabis would violate plaintiffs' free exercise of religion in violation of RFRA. The court said in part:

No reasonable juror could infer, from what is presently in the record, that Mooney’s religion is anything more than a strongly held belief in the importance or benefits of marijuana. Even if this belief is sincerely held, and even if marijuana use is indeed beneficial, the court cannot conclude from the record that a reasonable juror could find that Plaintiffs’ belief is religious in nature....

Even if the evidence in the record did support the existence of a religion,... a reasonable juror could not conclude that the prohibition on cannabis constitutes a substantial burden on Plaintiffs’ alleged religion..... Mooney himself describes peyote as his religion’s “primary sacrament,” and lists a litany of other drugs his Church members use. Nothing in the record explains why relying on these other drugs instead of cannabis would be more than an inconvenience for Plaintiffs.