The Enlightened Esquire

One of the oldest doors to lawful psychedelic use is also the most misunderstood: religion. Under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), the government cannot substantially burden a sincere religious exercise unless it proves a compelling interest pursued by the least restrictive means. For psychedelic sacraments, that test has quietly reshaped what is possible.

The foundation: O Centro

In Gonzales v. O Centro (2006), a unanimous Supreme Court held that the government had failed to justify barring a church’s sacramental ayahuasca — and that Schedule I status, by itself, is not a compelling interest. Crucially, the protection extended to the people who import, prepare, and administer the sacrament, not only to congregants.

Three roads, three churches

• By settlement — the Church of the Eagle and the Condor (Arizona) reached a settlement with the DEA in 2024, securing permits to import and use ayahuasca; the first such church protected without a trial verdict.
• By petition — the Church of Gaia (Washington) became the first to win a RFRA exemption through the DEA’s own petition process, with no lawsuit, in May 2025.
• By injunction — Singularism (Utah), a psilocybin congregation, won a preliminary injunction barring local interference; the case (Jensen v. Utah County) is now on appeal at the Tenth Circuit.

Not every church wins

RFRA is not a loophole. The DEA has denied applications — Soul Quest among them — and a federal report found the agency had granted none of two dozen petitions over an eight-year span. What separates protected practice from a prosecuted one is sincerity and structure: genuine ceremony and doctrine, sound organization, careful screening, secure stewardship of the sacrament, and a noncommercial purpose. The same factors that prove sincerity are the factors that defeat the government’s case.

Sources: Gonzales v. O Centro, 546 U.S. 418 (2006); Bloomberg (Church of Gaia, 2025); Psychedelics Today; Chacruna RFRA Guide. Educational only; not legal advice.