AYA Defeats DEA Motion to Dismiss – Federal Judge Green-Lights Case for Trial
Today U.S. District Court Judge Roslyn O. Silver ruled that Arizona Yagé Assembly’s lawsuit against the Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Homeland Security, and Customs and Border Protection may proceed, rejecting the Department of Justice’s arguments in a meticulously written decision that outlines the elements necessary to allege a viable claim against the DEA under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”). What follows just touches on the highlights of Judge Silver’s opinion, that you can download here.
Visionary Churches Must Allege a “Concrete Plan” to Act Contrary to the Controlled Substances Act (“CSA”)
AYA satisfied this requirement by alleging that it “holds bi-monthly Ayahuasca ceremonies and plans to continue to hold bi-monthly meetings … for the foreseeable future.”
Visionary Churches Should Not Apply to the DEA for a RFRA Exemption Under the DEA “Guidance” document
The infamous DEA Guidance document has been thoroughly debunked by all the commentators who have discussed it. In its lawsuit, AYA characterized it as a faux procedure, a painting of a door on a wall that will never admit anyone. The DEA’s argument, called the “requirement of administrative exhaustion” has been repeatedly rejected by the Ninth Circuit and its District Courts, but the DEA continues to argue that visionary churches suing for RFRA exemptions from the CSA must first submit a “petition for exemption” under the DEA Guidance. Therefore, judges have to keep rejecting the argument. Here Judge Silver underlines the fact that the DEA have litigated and lost this point already by citing a dispositive Ninth Circuit opinion and announcing: “The Court will not depart from that clear precedent.”
Visionary Churches May Litigate on Behalf of The Members of their Congregation
AYA asserted “associational standing,” the right to stand in the shoes of its members to protect the free exercise rights of all who attend AYA ceremonies. This has always been a major concern of AYA — to do everything possible to protect the free exercise rights of those who join in visionary communion in sacred space. The DOJ argued that AYA couldn’t proceed in the name of its members. Individual members, the DOJ argued, had to individually attest to their religious sincerity. Judge Silver rejected the notion, quoting Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court precedent:
“The Ninth Circuit in Oklevueha answered this question on closely related facts, and held that it can reasonably be supposed that the [AYA’s prospective relief], if granted, will inure to the benefit of those members of the association actually injured.”
Visionary Churches are Not Liable for Law Enforcement Oppression
Possibly the most offensive DOJ argument is that visionary religion practitioners have only themselves to blame for having to practice their religion in fear of criminal prosecution. Judge Silver rejected it:
While Defendants try to re-cast Plaintiffs’ alleged “burden” as one imposed by the DEA’s exemption process, that was not how Plaintiffs made their allegations in the Fifth Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs argue they are burdened by the CSA’s complete ban on ayahuasca use and importation, not by the exemption process outlined by DEA’s Guidance. They have alleged multiple seizures of ayahuasca shipments, which interrupts their free exercise of religion because they cannot use the ayahuasca that has been seized. That is sufficient to state a claim under RFRA.
The May 4th ruling by Judge Silver was the second win for visionary churches in Arizona United States District Court. Judge Susan Bolton recently allowed a RFRA complaint filed by The Church of the Eagle and the Condor to proceed, denying similar arguments by the DEA in her decision.