10th Circuit: Utah Psychedelic Mushroom Prosecution Can Proceed

• The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a federal injunction that had blocked Utah's prosecution of Singularism founder Bridger Jensen for the religious use of psychedelic mushrooms.
• The court cited the Younger abstention doctrine, asserting that federal courts should not interfere with state criminal proceedings, even when religious freedom claims are made, unless a high burden of proof is met.
• Jensen's First Amendment argument, comparing regulated medical psilocybin use to religious use, was rejected due to differing safeguards.
• The 10th Circuit declined to rule on Jensen's claim under Utah's Religious Freedom Restoration Act, leaving this critical issue for resolution in state court.
• This case will now be the first to apply Utah's 2024 RFRA, which requires the government to satisfy strict scrutiny when burdening religious freedom.

This ruling by the Tenth Circuit reinforces the robust application of the Younger abstention doctrine, establishing a high threshold for federal courts to halt state criminal prosecutions, even when claims of religious freedom are at stake.

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals recently reversed a federal injunction that had temporarily halted Utah's criminal proceedings against Bridger Jensen, the founder of the spiritual organization Singularism. This pivotal ruling allows the state to resume its prosecution of Jensen, who faces charges related to the religious use of psychedelic mushrooms. The case centers on a 2024 incident where law enforcement, following an undercover operation, raided Jensen's Provo, Utah, center, seizing 450 grams of psilocybin, the active compound in psychedelic mushrooms utilized in Singularism's practices.

Jensen subsequently initiated a lawsuit against Utah County and the city of Provo, contending that the police actions infringed upon his religious freedom. In 2025, U.S. District Chief Judge Jill Parrish, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, sided with Jensen, issuing an order that blocked the ongoing state criminal prosecution. This federal intervention prompted an appeal from the state of Utah, leading to the Tenth Circuit's recent decision.

Central to the Tenth Circuit's decision was the question of whether a federal court possesses the authority to impede a state court's prosecution concerning a religious leader's drug use. U.S. Circuit Judge Robert Bacharach, also an Obama appointee, unequivocally stated, "We answer no," emphasizing the delicate balance between religious exercise and a state's power to criminalize drug use. The court underscored that individuals retain the freedom to practice their religion, while states maintain the right to prohibit certain substances. The complex legal challenge arises when religious tenets involve the use of drugs otherwise banned under state law.

The Tenth Circuit determined that the lower court should have permitted these issues to proceed within the state judicial system, citing the Younger abstention doctrine. This principle mandates that federal courts generally refrain from interfering with state court proceedings, particularly when significant state interests are involved. Jensen had argued that federal intervention was essential due to alleged bad faith in the prosecution and the potential for irreparable harm, but the Tenth Circuit found he failed to meet the stringent burden of proof required for such an extraordinary measure.

Furthermore, Jensen's First Amendment argument, which posited that Utah's 2024 law allowing medical institutions to use psilocybin experimentally in regulated settings while criminalizing religious use constituted a religious freedom violation, was also rejected. The appellate court concluded that the medical exceptions for psilocybin were not comparable to Singularism's religious use. Judge Bacharach highlighted that "statutory and regulatory safeguards render secular use less likely to undermine the government’s interests than Singularism’s religious use," indicating a clear distinction in the perceived risks and oversight between the two contexts.

Despite its definitive stance on federal intervention and the First Amendment claim, the Tenth Circuit deliberately chose not to rule on one of Bridger Jensen's primary arguments: that Utah's Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) protects his use of psilocybin. This state law, enacted in 2024, establishes a high legal bar, prohibiting the government from burdening a person's religious freedom unless it can satisfy strict scrutiny. Jensen's ongoing case marks the first instance where this specific state statute will be applied and interpreted.

The appellate court's decision to leave this critical claim for resolution in the lower state court means that the legal battle for the 10th Circuit Utah psychedelic mushroom prosecution is far from over. Jensen's attorney, Tanner Bean, confirmed that the case will now proceed, with the Utah Religious Freedom Restoration Act becoming the central focus. This development sets the stage for a significant legal test of the state's commitment to protecting religious practices, particularly when they intersect with controlled substances.

This ruling by the Tenth Circuit reinforces the robust application of the Younger abstention doctrine, establishing a high threshold for federal courts to halt state criminal prosecutions, even when claims of religious freedom are are at stake. For legal practitioners advising clients on the religious use of controlled substances within the Tenth Circuit, this decision underscores the necessity of understanding the stringent requirements for federal intervention and the court's differentiation between regulated medical and religious applications.

The case now shifts back to the state level, where it will serve as a crucial test for the interpretation and practical application of Utah's new Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The outcome of this specific 10th Circuit Utah psychedelic mushroom prosecution will undoubtedly influence future cases involving religious freedom and controlled substances, potentially setting precedents for how states balance individual religious exercise against public safety concerns and drug enforcement policies.

This ruling reinforces the Younger abstention doctrine, making it harder for federal courts to block state criminal prosecutions, even when religious freedom is asserted. Lawyers advising clients on religious use of controlled substances in the 10th Circuit must understand the high bar for federal intervention and the court's distinction between regulated medical and religious use. Furthermore, the case will now be a critical test for the interpretation and application of Utah's new Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Source: Original reporting via Court News Service