Appeal from pharmacy board’s refusal to consider religious exemption

|

On August 15, 2018, my attor­ney filed an appeal from the phar­ma­cy board’s refusal to con­sid­er a reli­gious exemp­tion to the sched­ules of con­trolled sub­stances for the sacra­men­tal use of cannabis by mem­bers of the Rasta­fari faith.  Olsen v. Board of Phar­ma­cy, Iowa Dis­trict Court, Polk Coun­ty, No. CVCV056841.

The Iowa Code
The Iowa Code

The exec­u­tive direc­tor uni­lat­er­al­ly denied the peti­tion on July 16, 2018, argu­ing that the board has no author­i­ty to con­sid­er reli­gious exemp­tions.  The director’s uni­lat­er­al deci­sion runs con­trary to the fact the Iowa sched­ules include a reli­gious exemp­tion (Iowa Code §§ 124.204(4)℗ and 124.204(8))) for the sacra­men­tal use of pey­ote by the Native Amer­i­can Church and the board has been giv­en the duty to rec­om­mend changes to the sched­ules.  See Iowa Code § 124.201 (“Duty to rec­om­mend changes in sched­ules”).  The board’s fed­er­al counter-part, the Drug Enforce­ment Admin­is­tra­tion (DEA), has guide­lines on how to apply for reli­gious exemp­tions to the fed­er­al con­trolled sub­stances act (21 U.S.C. §§ 801 et seq.), so it would vio­late both the state and fed­er­al con­sti­tu­tions if the state sched­ul­ing did not have a sim­i­lar process (due process) for doing the same thing.  And, the DEA has a reli­gious exemp­tion (21 C.F.R. § 1307.31) for the sacra­men­tal use of pey­ote by the Native Amer­i­can Church.

But the DEA has not always accept­ed appli­ca­tions for reli­gious exemp­tions.  In 1988, The DEA said it had no author­i­ty to con­sid­er reli­gious exemp­tions when I applied for one.  See Olsen v. DEA, 878 F.2d 1458, 1460 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (“Accord­ing to the DEA, Con­gress intend­ed no reli­gious-use exemp­tion from Con­trolled Sub­stances Act pro­scrip­tions oth­er than the pey­ote-use per­mis­sion grant­ed the Native Amer­i­can Church”).

The U.S. Court of Appeals respond­ed to the DEA by say­ing:

The DEA’s con­tention that Con­gress direct­ed the Admin­is­tra­tor auto­mat­i­cal­ly to turn away all church­es save one opens a grave con­sti­tu­tion­al ques­tion.  A statu­to­ry exemp­tion autho­rized for one church alone, and for which no oth­er church may qual­i­fy, presents a “denom­i­na­tion­al pref­er­ence” not eas­i­ly rec­on­ciled with the estab­lish­ment clause.  See Lar­son v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228, 245, 72 L. Ed. 2d 33, 102 S. Ct. 1673 (1982); cf. infra pp. 12–13.  We resist an inter­pre­ta­tion dis­so­nant with the “car­di­nal prin­ci­ple” that leg­is­la­tion should be con­strued, if “fair­ly pos­si­ble,” to avoid a con­sti­tu­tion­al con­fronta­tion.  See Ash­wan­der v. TVA, 297 U.S. 288, 348, 80 L. Ed. 688, 56 S. Ct. 466 (1936) (Bran­deis, J., con­cur­ring).

Fur­ther­more, we rec­og­nize that even if the DEA were not empow­ered or oblig­ed to act, Olsen would be enti­tled to a judi­cial audi­ence.  Ulti­mate­ly, the courts can­not escape the oblig­a­tion to address his plea that the exemp­tion he seeks is man­dat­ed by the first amendment’s reli­gion claus­es.  See Pey­ote Way Church of God v. Smith, 742 F.2d 193 (5th Cir. 1984) (uphold­ing church’s stand­ing to seek a declara­to­ry judg­ment that deny­ing church access to pey­ote is uncon­sti­tu­tion­al).

Id. at 1461.

I don’t want to pre­dict how the Iowa courts will rule on this, but I can cer­tain­ly say how the Iowa courts should rule on it.  The Iowa courts should agree with the fed­er­al courts.  The phar­ma­cy board’s exec­u­tive direc­tor was not autho­rized by the Iowa leg­is­la­ture to turn away all church­es oth­er than the Native Amer­i­can Church.

My attor­ney is rep­re­sent­ing me pro bono, but I am pay­ing for the fil­ing fees.  If you’d like to help me with expens­es, you can donate by going to my dona­tion page at https://www.gofundme.com/rastafari-cannabis-sacrament.