---

---

1. The Iowa Controlled Substances Act (CSA), 1971 Acts Chapter 148, Iowa Code Chapter 124, is unconstitutional because: (1) the statutory exception added to the Iowa CSA in 1971 for non-prescription use of peyote by members the Native American Church; (2) the statutory exception added to the Iowa CSA in 2017 for non-prescription use of cannabis and cannabis extracts; and (3) the lack of administrative process for making exceptions; deprive Olsen of religious freedom without due process.  Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 881 (1990) (“the Free Exercise Clause in conjunction with other constitutional protections”) (emphasis added).
   1. First Amendment Establishment Clause:  The inclusion of a statutory exception in 1971 Acts Chapter 148 § 204(5), Iowa Code § 124.204(8), for the religious use of peyote by members of the Native American Church, and the exclusion in 1971 Acts Chapter 148 § 302, Iowa Code § 124.302, of administrative process by which a member of another religious organization could seek equal protection, violates the Establishment Clause.  Mitchell County v. Zimmerman, 810 N.W.2d 1, 9-10 (Iowa 2012) (“A law lacks facial neutrality if it refers to a religious practice without a secular meaning discernable from the language or context”).
   2. Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause:  The exclusion from the Iowa CSA of administrative process, recommended in 1971 by the Iowa Drug Abuse Study Committee in Section 302(4) of its report (executive branch authority to waive registration requirements), by which a member of another religious organization could have sought a registration waiver like the statutory exception waiving registration requirements for the religious use of peyote by members of the Native American Church, violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.  Iowa Code § 124.204(8) (“persons supplying the product to the church shall register”).
   3. Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause:  The inclusion of a statutory exception in the Iowa CSA for the secular use of cannabis, and the lack of process Olsen could use to seek an exception for religious use of cannabis, violates the Petitioner’s right to Free Exercise of Religion under the First Amendment and Equal Protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.
2. The district court erred by finding collateral estoppel precludes the constitutional claims in this action by relying on previous decisions in State v. Olsen, No. 171-69079 (Iowa, July 18, 1984), attached to Olsen v. State of Iowa, Not Reported in F.Supp., 1986 WL 4045 (S.D. Iowa), as Appendix A; State v. Olsen, 315 N.W.2d 1 (Iowa 1982); Olsen v. Drug Enforcement Admin., 878 F.2d 1458 (D.C. Cir. 1989); and Olsen v. Mukasey, 541 F.3d 827 (8th Cir. 2008), which were all decided prior to the statutory exception for cannabis added to the Iowa CSA in 2017.
3. The district court erred by finding Olsen is not substantially burdened by the criminal penalties prohibiting the use of his sacrament, contrary to the decisions in the previous cases the district court cited in finding collateral estoppel.  Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer, 582 U.S. 449, 463 (2017) (“the Free Exercise Clause protects against ‘indirect coercion or penalties on the free exercise of religion, not just outright prohibitions’”), quoting Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Assn., 485 U.S. 439, 450 (1988).
4. The district court erred by refusing to apply strict scrutiny to the personal and private religious use of cannabis by Olsen compared to the personal and private use of cannabis extracts containing extremely high levels of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ⁹-THC) by 23,000 Iowans authorized by the Iowa Medical Cannabidiol Act, Iowa Code Chapter 124E.  Fulton v. Philadelphia, 593 U.S. 522, 534 (2021) (“A law also lacks general applicability if it prohibits religious conduct while permitting secular conduct that undermines the government’s asserted interests in a similar way”).

This case should be retained by the Iowa Supreme Court because the issues raised involve substantial constitutional questions as to the validity of a statute and substantial questions of enunciating or changing legal principles.  Iowa R. App. P. 6.903(2)(a)(4), 6.1101(2)(a), and 6.1101(2)(f) (2025).

Olsen brought this civil action, authorized by the Iowa Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), Iowa Code Chapter 675, against the State to enjoin the enforcement of the Iowa Controlled Substances Act (CSA), Iowa Code Chapter 124, against his personal and private religious use of cannabis.

The State did not show any evidence that Olsen is a threat to public health or safety.  In fact, both the State witnesses testified that the personal and private religious use of cannabis by Olsen would not cause them any harm.  Instead, the State based its case entirely on the worst examples of how other people abused or used cannabis.

Carl Olsen believes cannabis is the body and blood of Christ.  Town v. State ex rel. Reno, 377 So.2d 648, 649 (Fla. 1979) (“members of the church believe that cannabis is the mystical body and blood of ‘Jes-us’”).  See Thomas v. Review Bd. of Ind. Employment Security Div., 450 U.S. 707, 714 (1981) (“religious beliefs need not be acceptable, logical, consistent, or comprehensible to others in order to merit First Amendment protection”).

Olsen joined the Ethiopian Zion Coptic Church prior to its incorporation in Jamaica in 1976.  Town v. State ex rel. Reno, 377 So.2d 648, 649 (Fla. 1979) (“the Ethiopian Zion Coptic Church is not a new church or religion but the record reflects it is centuries old and has regularly used cannabis as its sacrament”).  Before the church incorporated in Jamaica it was known by the name of Rastafari.  Jamaica authorized religious use of cannabis by Rastafari in 2015.  2015 Act No. 5, pp. 4, 6-7, and 11.

Olsen is aware that members of his church have allowed children to use cannabis, Town, 377 So.2d at 649 (“it is freely given to children”), but that is not what Olsen does.

No two persons think alike, even if they outwardly profess the same faith, so we have as many religions in Christianity as we have believers.

Philosophy & Opinions of Marcus Garvey, edited by Amy Jacques Garvey (Atheneum, New York 1977), p. 3.

There was no evidence presented by the State that the 23,000 Iowans registered under Chapter 124E are unable to keep cannabis extracts with extremely high levels of THC away from children.  Prescription drugs can be dangerous and people are trusted to use those without sharing them or giving them to children.

Cultivation of cannabis to make cannabis extracts for non-prescription medical use is authorized under the Iowa CSA.  Iowa Code § 124.401(5)(c); Iowa Code Chapter 124E.  Peyote is also authorized for non-prescription use, but not for medical use.  This court has previously explained the difference between a prescription and registration card for the medical use of cannabis in State v. Middlekauff, 974 N.W.2d 781 (Iowa 2022).

The Iowa RFRA does not require membership in a church.  The Iowa RFRA protects, “the ability to act or refuse to act in a manner substantially motivated by one’s sincerely held religious belief, whether or not the exercise is compulsory or central to a larger system of religious belief.”  Iowa Code § 675.3(2).  Olsen suspended his use of cannabis, contrary to his religious beliefs, because the State is threatening his health and safety, and has been unable to practice his religion all this time.

The State told the court that Olsen suspending the use of cannabis shows a lack of a substantial burden on his religious beliefs, saying Olsen has “been practicing this religion without smoking marijuana for 36 years”.  Trial Tr. 68:1-3.  Olsen should not be mocked by the State for obeying the law while the State has been operating a medical cannabis program as a federal racketeering scheme all this time.  Trial Tr. 46:14-16 (“federal illegality”).  See Safe Streets Alliance v. Hickenlooper, 859 F.3d 865, 884 (10th Cir. 2017) (“manufacture, distribution, and sale of that substance is, by definition, racketeering activity”).

The Iowa RFRA authorizes Olsen to seek an injunction against the State for his personal and private religious use of cannabis.  Iowa Code § 675.4(2).  However, this is not the first time since suspending the use of cannabis in 1990 that Olsen has complained about the burden the Iowa CSA places on his religious beliefs.

After completing a prison sentence for distribution of cannabis as part of church activities, Olsen worked for the Iowa Department of Transportation for 13 years, Captain Jack Communications for 3 years, and Drake University for 17 years.  Olsen earned a paralegal degree from DMACC in 1991, had his right to vote restored in 1992, and earned a certificate in computer networking from Hamilton College in 2020.  Olsen served in various voluteer positions, Treasurer for Des Moines Neighbors, Treasurer for AFSCME Local 1185, Iowa Democratic Party county, district and state platform committees for over 20 years.  Olsen ran for public office:

• 1992: Grassroots Party candidate for U.S. Senate
• 1994: Libertarian Party candidate for Governor of Iowa
• 1996: Libertarian Party candidate for U.S. House of Representatives

In 2008, in response to this court’s decision in State v. Bonjour, 694 N.W.2d 511 (Iowa 2005) (denying a medical necessity defense for cannabis because the pharmacy board had the authority to decide if cannabis had medical use), Olsen successfully petitioned the Iowa Board of Pharmacy to recommend removing cannabis from Schedule 1 of the Iowa CSA, which it did in 2010.  McMahon et al. v. Iowa Board of Pharmacy (Carl Olsen, Intervenor), Iowa Supreme Court No. 09-1789, May 14, 2010

In 2013, Olsen intervened in a petition to remove cannabis from Schedule 1 of the federal CSA, Americans for Safe Access, et al. v. Drug Enforcement Admin. (Carl Olsen, Intervenor), 706 F.3d 438 (D.C. Cir. 2013), cert. denied, 571 U.S. 885 (2013), Docket No. 13-84.  Certiorari was also denied in Olsen v. Drug Enforcement Admin., 571 U.S. 1025 (2013), Docket No. 13-484.

In 2017, the State authorized cultivation of cannabis for medical use, the Iowa Medical Cannabidiol Act (MCA), 2017 Acts Chapter 162, Iowa Code Chapter 124E.  Olsen believes that religious use of cannabis is a compelling interest equal to, or greater than, the excepted secular use of cannabis.  Religious freedom is enshrined in the State and federal constitutions.  See Fulton v. Philadelphia, 593 U.S. 522, 534 (2021):

A law also lacks general applicability if it prohibits religious conduct while permitting secular conduct that undermines the government’s asserted interests in a similar way.  Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, 508 U.S., at 542-546.

In 2018, in reaction to the Iowa MCA, Olsen petitioned the Iowa Board of Pharmacy to recommend the Iowa legislature add an exception for the religious use of cannabis by Rastafari.  The board declined and judicial review upheld the board’s decision, Olsen v. Iowa Board of Pharmacy, Case No. CVCV056841 (Iowa District Court, Polk County, April 2, 2019).

In 2021, Olsen petitioned the Iowa Department of Public Health for a registration card under the Iowa MCA which he hoped would give him the ability to petition the department to add cannabis plants obtained from cultivators authorized under Iowa Code § 124E.6 as an accepted form of personal and private religious use by Olsen under Iowa Code § 124E.5.  The department declined and judicial review upheld the department’s decision, Olsen v. Iowa Department Health and Human Services, Case No. CVCV065114 (Iowa District Court, Polk County, August 20, 2023).

In 2023, Olsen argued the exception for religious use of peyote, Iowa Code § 124.204(8), implied a constitutional duty on the department to make administrative rules.  Olsen petitioned the Iowa Department of Inspections, Appeals, and Licensing to create rules for handling religious exceptions to the Iowa CSA.  The department declined, and judicial review upheld the department’s decision, Olsen v. Iowa Department of Inspections, Appeals, and Licensing, Case No. CVCV066477 (Iowa District Court, Polk County, December 4, 2024).

During the judicial review hearing on September 24, 2024, Olsen tried to introduce the newly enacted Iowa Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), 2024 Acts Chapter 1003, Iowa Code Chapter 675.  The State suggested that Olsen should initiate a new civil action in district court rather than pursuing judicial review of an administration action.

In 2025 Olsen brought this civil action against the State under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, to declare the Iowa Controlled Substances Act (CSA), 1971 Acts Chapter 148, Iowa Code Chapter 124, unconstitutional as applied to his personal and private religious use of cannabis and enjoin its enforcement against him in the future.

The district court, construing this Court’s decisions in State v. Olsen, No. 171-69079 (Iowa, July 18, 1984), attached to Olsen v. State of Iowa, Not Reported in F.Supp., 1986 WL 4045 (S.D. Iowa), as Appendix A, and in State v. Olsen, 315 N.W.2d 1 (Iowa 1982), along with the decision in Olsen v. Drug Enforcement Admin., 878 F.2d 1458 (D.C. Cir. 1989), and the decision in Olsen v. Mukasey, 541 F.3d 827 (8th Cir. 2008), held that Olsen’s constitutional claims were barred by collateral estoppel.  Ruling on Motions for Summary Judgment (D0033), December 12, 2025, at page 11.

Each of the previous claims were based on State and federal exceptions for the religious use of peyote by the Native American Church.  Olsen’s constitutional claims in this case are based on the accepted use of cannabis in the Iowa MCA, which is not the same as previous claims.

The three administrative actions Olsen initiated between 2018 and 2023 were limited on judicial review to the question presented to the agency.  In each of the three, Olsen assumed the agency had the constitutional and statutory authority to take the action he requested.  The State agency was not asked to enjoin the operation of a statute.  Olsen argued the authority and the duty to act were constitutionally implied because the Iowa CSA explicitly authorizes religious use.  Iowa Code § 124.204(8).  Until the Iowa RFRA was enacted in 2024, Olsen had no way of suing the State directly to enjoin the operation of the statute.

Cannabis is central and essential to the Olsen’s religious beliefs.  Trial Tr. 12:22-23.  Olsen referred to essential oils referenced in the King James Version of the Bible and a reference to cannabis extracts (essential oils) in the Iowa CSA, Iowa Code § 124.204(4)(av), schedule 1 controlled substances used in medical treatment in Iowa since 2014, Iowa Code § 124.401(5)(c), Iowa Code § 124E.2(10) (“any pharmaceutical grade cannabinoid found in the plant”).  Trial Tr. 14:15-23.  Olsen referred to smoking referenced in the King James Version of the Bible and he learned about cannabis by smoking it.  The Petitioner interprets these referenced in the King James Version of the Bible to be references to smoking cannabis.  Trial Tr. 14:25 through 15:20.

The Iowa law prohibiting possession of cannabis is a substantial burden on Olsen’s religious beliefs because it imposes a two-year prison sentence and fine not to exceed $8,540 for each instance of simple possession.  Trial Tr. 16:13-25.  Olsen suspended his use of cannabis because of the threat of criminal and civil penalties.  Trial Tr. 15:20-22.  Olsen would re-join the Ethiopian Zion Coptic Church if Iowa authorized the church to use cannabis.  Trial Tr. 17:24-25.  In all of Olsen’s previous cases, both State and federal courts have unanimously held that the laws prohibiting possession of cannabis are a substantial burden on the Olsen’s religious beliefs.  Trial Tr. 31:6-13.  Olsen has never been accused of injuring anyone.  Trial Tr. 31:22-25.

Olsen offered to negotiate terms and limits to an injunction, such as the limits on cultivation and possession for medical use of cannabis in the State of Minnesota.  Trial Tr. 33:17-25, 34:1-13.  The exceptions to Chapter 124 are regulatory schemes because registration and compliance is required.  The Religious Freedom Restoration Act is a judicial scheme by which one person can seek a court order describing the person and the activity that is protected from enforcement.  Trial Tr. 30:12-15.

Delta-9 THC is the primary psychoactive component of the cannabis plant.  Trial Tr. 40:6-8.  Over 23,000 Iowans can purchase and possess Δ-9 THC in Iowa.  Trial Tr. 47:16-24.  The majority (90%) of forumulations under Chapter 124E have a high concentration of Δ-9 THC.  Trial Tr. 48:1-3.  The most common (78%) use of formulations under Chapter 124E is inhalation by vaporization.  Trial Tr. 48:4-14.  There is a default limit on how much Δ-9 THC registered users can possess, but they can set a higher limit if needed.  Trial Tr. 50:15-19.  Delta-9 THC is not known to be toxic.  Trial Tr. 51:8-10.  Smokable, dried, raw cannabis is not approved for medical use.  Trial Tr. 60:21 through 64:18.

Formulations under Chapter 124E must be used privately and can not be used anywhere they would put someone else in jeopardy of being involved in a federal crime.  Trial Tr. 49:8-11.  Chapter 124E places participants in federal jeopardy because participation violates federal drug law; participation in Chapter 124E is not medically supervised, because it violates federal drug law; and partipants depend on organized crime to operate the program.  Trial Tr. 46:2-25.

A substantial number of States allow raw cannabis for medical treatment.  Trial Tr. 57:2-7.  Millions of people can possess raw cannabis legally under State laws in the United States.  Trial Tr. 57:9-12.  Millions of people can grow their own cannabis at home in the United States legally under State medical marijuana laws.  Trial Tr. 57:13-24.  States surrounding Iowa authorize home cultivation of cannabis for medical use under the condition they do not share it with anyone or use it in public.  Trial Tr. 23:3-6.  Three States bordering Iowa that allow people to grow their own cannabis at home are Minnesota, Illinois, and Missouri.  Trial Tr. 57:24, 58:1-25.

Marijuana is the number one substance reported by juveniles that are treated for substance abuse.  Trial Tr. 74:14-16.  In 2025, 40.2 percent of Iowans who were admitted to substance use disorder treatment, cited “recent,” which means past 30 days, marijuana use.  Trial Tr. 75:1-4.

The Iowa consumable hemp program, Chapter 204, and the Iowa medical cannabis program, Chapter 124E, have caused an increase in emergency department visits for marijuana use, which has nearly doubled in the last ten years.  Trial Tr. 77:7-24, Trial Tr. 120:2-6.  Department data does not track organically grown cannabis separately from highly contaminated cannabis, or products with synethetically manufactured cannabinoids, it only tracks THC and makes no distinction between naturally occuring and chemically engineered THC.  Trial Tr. 100:2.  Potency in concentrates and edibles has increased and they are widely available.  Trial Tr. 77:25, 78:1-3.  The Iowa consumable hemp program enacted in 2019 had no age restriction and no THC limit.  Consumable hemp products caused a large increase in emergency department visits and calls to the Iowa Poison Control Center, specifically youth accessing those products.  In 2024, age restrictions and a THC limit were added to the consumable henp program.  Trial Tr. 87:17-25, 88:1-21.

The THC limit set for Iowa consumable hemp products in 2024 is twenty-five (25) times greater than THC limit recently set by Congress in 2025.  Trial Tr. 68:17-22.  See:

See FY2026 Agriculture appropriations law (P.L. 119-37, Division B) amending the statutory definition of hemp in 7 U.S.C. § 1639o established by the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (2018 farm bill; P.L. 115-334, § 10113); and see FY2027 Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act (through 12/11/2026), H.R. 6500., P.L. 119-103, § 2019 (SECTION 781 EXTENSION), 09/02/2026.

Both State witnesses said they would not be injured if the Petitioner uses cannabis for religious reasons in the privacy of his home, does not share it with anyone, and does not use it in public.  Trial Tr. 93:11-14, 117:16-22.  Both state witnesses were unaware of anyone else in Iowa that has ever made a religious claim for cannabis.  Trial Tr. 105:22-24, 120:8-10.

Chapter 124E is consistent with public health and safety because there is a registration card, Trial Tr. 97:8-10, and because there are parameters around the use of THC, Trial Tr. 97:12-13.

Olsen could not bring this action sooner, because the State did not authorize secular cultivation of cannabis until 2017, Chapter 124E, and the State did not consent to being sued until 2024 when the RFRA was enacted, Chapter 675.

Olsen suspended his use of cannabis in 1990 after the decision in Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990).  The U.S. Supreme Court denied Olsen’s request for an exemption for his church in Olsen v. Drug Enforcement Admin., 495 U.S. 906 (1990).  The U.S. Supreme Court held in Smith that State laws are subject to strict scrutiny if they lack neutrality or general applicability, and Olsen had always received strict scrutiny because of the State and federal exceptions for the religious use of peyote by the Native American Church.  Olsen was precluded by collateral estoppel from making that same claim again, but the accepted secular use of cannabis was already beginning to develop and is now accepted by a large majority of states including by Iowa in 2017.  Olsen v. Mukasey, 541 F.3d at 831 (“Collateral estoppel does not apply if controlling facts or legal principles have changed significantly since Olsen’s prior judgments”).

An important development for Olsen began in 1988, when the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that, “marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man.”  DEA Docket No. 86-22, September 6, 1988, at pages 58-59, attached as Exhibit B to Olsen’s Brief in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment (D0021), September 25, 2025.  Olsen was a petitioner in that case.  The administrator rejected the recommendation of the ALJ to reschedule cannabis, but only because there were not enough medical professionals that had accepted it for medical use in 1988.  Denial of Petition, 54 FR 53767, Friday, December 29, 1989.

Cannabis had not yet been accepted by any State in 1990 and Olsen had exhausted the claim that his church was similar enough to the Native American Church to receive equal protection.  Olsen v. Mukasey, 541 F.3d 827, 832 (8th Cir. 2008) (“Strict scrutiny was the appropriate analysis”), cert. denied sub nom. Olsen v. Holder, 556 U.S. 1221 (2009).  The court did not apply First Amendment strict scrutiny in Smith, because Oregon did not have any exceptions to its drug laws, but Olsen always received strict scrutiny because Iowa has exceptions.

Congress disagreed with the decision in Smith and tried to reverse it by enacting the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) in 1993, codified at 42 U.S.C. Chapter 21B, followed by the American Indian Religious Freedom Act Amendments in 1994, codified at 42 U.S.C. § 1996a, to protect the religious use of peyote by native Americans.  The federal RFRA was held unconstitutional as applied to the States in City of Boerne v. Archbishop Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997).  Congress lacks the constitutional authority to force States to apply the federal RFRA to their State laws.  States began enacting their own RFRA laws in response to the decision in Boerne, and Iowa enacted its RFRA law in 2024.

Not long afte the decision in Smith, States began accepting the secular, non-prescription use of cannabis on a massive scale after the federal medical cannabis program ended in 1992.  See Conant v. Walters, 309 F.3d 629, 648 (9th Cir. 2002) (Appendix).  Two of the patient testimonies in the Appendix are from Iowans who incorporated Iowans for Medical Marijuana with Olsen in 2006, Iowa Business No. 334412.  The three of us began using that name in 1990.

Today there are 48 States and several U.S. territories that authorize some form of non-prescription cannabis for medical treatment, all without federal authorization under 21 U.S.C. § 822(d).  Twenty-four (24) of those States allow home cultivation for medical use.

Olsen does not share cannabis with anyone or expose anyone to cannabis.  The State has authorized 23,000 Iowans to use chemically engineered, highly potent THC without supervision under the condition they agree not to share THC with anyone or expose anyone to THC.  Olsen wants to use cannabis for prayer in private without sharing it or exposing anyone to it.  Matthew 6:6 (KJV):

But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

The State said the Petitioner only “wants to smoke marijuana.” Tr. 126:7-8.  But smoking cannabis is Olsen’s religious tradition.  The court found that Olsen is sincere.  Order (D0076), Sept. 10, 2026, at page 11 (“the Petitioner has met his burden to establish a sincere religious belief”).  Smoking is mentioned throughout the Bible, Tr. 15:1-2.  The glory of God filled the temple with smoke.  Revelation 15:8 (KJV).  And I am the temple of the living God.  2 Corinthians 6:16 (KJV).

Chapter 124E is not a facade for the recreational use of THC, although the State has not taken federal authorization for the program under 21 U.S.C. § 822(d) seriously.  See the Department of Health and Human Services, Medical Cannabidiol Board, Recommendations to the Iowa General Assembly, January 2026, at page 10:

8.  Seek a Federal Exemption for Iowa’s program

The Board recommends that a task force of legal experts be authorized, similar to the current board of medical experts, to assist the department in navigating the legal issues involved with requesting an exemption for Iowa’s program from necessary Federal agencies.  This is related to a recommendation in the Board’s 2019 Annual Report and the passage of HF2589 in June, 2020.

(https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/publications/DF/1594762.pdf).  Trial Tr. 36:5-9, 45:11-17.  See Safe Streets Alliance, 859 F.3d at 884 (“Marijuana is a controlled substance under the CSA.  21 U.S.C. § 802(16).  So the manufacture, distribution, and sale of that substance is, by definition, racketeering activity under RICO.  18 U.S.C. § 1961(1)(A), (D)”).

The State could be sued by users registered under Chapter 124E for exposing them to federal jeopardy and failure to represent their interests under federal law.  See Bond v. United States, 564 U.S. 211, 220 (2011) (“The individual, in a proper case, can assert injury from governmental action taken in excess of the authority that federalism defines.  Her rights in this regard do not belong to a State”).  Bond, 564 U.S. at 221 (“federalism secures to citizens the liberties that derive from the diffusion of sovereign power”).  Bond, 564 U.S. at 223 (“If the constitutional structure of our Government that protects individual liberty is compromised, individuals who suffer otherwise justiciable injury may object”).

There is no limit on the amount of THC a registered user can have under Chapter 124E.  A registered user can give the State any THC limit that works for them.  There is a default amount of 4.5 grams of THC per 90 days, Iowa Code § 124E.9(14), but that can be increased if the default amount is insufficient, Iowa Code § 124E.9(15)(b).  The user determines what their limit will be.  That can easily translate into terms and conditions to an injunction, a plant and possession limit Olsen will agree to that can be adjusted as needed by a motion to modify the terms and conditions to the injunction.  Law enforcement will have a court order, just like a registration card under Chapter 124E, and will not have to guess what the parameters are.

An injunction can be revoked just like a registration card if the terms and conditions are not followed.  Criminal penalties for unauthorized use apply the same as they would for someone without an injunction or a registration card.  Olsen will not violate the terms and conditions of an injunction.  The enforcement priorities of the State will remain intact.

The trial court erred by dismissing this claim based on speculation that Olsen might violate the terms and conditions of an injunction.  The facts the State presented were based on how other people abuse cannabis, or that cannabis was present while some other abuse was taking place.  The facts the State presented about Olsen were from the long distant past, the amount of cannabis Olsen had and his intent to distribute it and no evidence was introduced that anyone was injured in any of those cases, no weapons, no violence.

The State presented no evidence at trial that Olsen has ever injured anyone or that Olsen ever would injure anyone.  Both the State witnesses testified under oath they would not be injured if Olsen possessed cannabis for personal, private religious use.

The constitutional arguments presented by the Petitioner in this case are not precluded by collateral estoppel.  The constitutional argument that is precluded by collateral estoppel is whether the religious use of cannabis by the Ethiopian Zion Coptic Church is entitled to the same constitutional protection as the religious use of peyote by the Native American Church.  Olsen is not making that argument.  Over the past twelve years, the non-prescription use of cannabis and cannabis extracts authorized by Iowa Code Chapter 124E, Iowa Code § 124.401(5)(c), has developed.  Unlike members of the Native American Church who are not required to register, possession of cannabis extract requires a registration card.  Law enforcement has a way to identify who is using cannabis extracts lawfully, the registration card.  The terms and conditions are spelled out in Chapter 124E §§ 21, 22, and 23.

There is no church in this action, no distribution, and no sharing.  This case is about simple possession by one person.  The State added a new exception to Chapter 124 for cannabis that authorizes cannabis to be grown and used in Iowa to make extracts that contain highly concentrated THC.  Iowa Code § 124E.6(1)(a), Trial Tr. 40:6-8, 48:1-14.  Twenty-three thousand (23,000) Iowans are registered and can purchase and possess as much THC as they need.  Iowa Code § 124E.9(15)(b), Trial Tr. 47:16-24, 50:15-19, 51:8-10.

The Petitioner is not challenging the validity of any previous constitutional analysis he received.  See Olivier v. City of Brandon, Mississippi, 607 U.S. 552, 557, 146 S. Ct. 916, 921 (2026) (“he has no interest in using a favorable judgment in this suit to later get his record expunged or avoid his conviction’s collateral effects.”); Id. 607 U.S. at 564, 146 S. Ct. at 924 (“the suit merely attempts to prevent future prosecution”).

Iowa Code § 124.204(8) is not facially neutral and violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

“A law lacks facial neutrality if it refers to a religious practice without a secular meaning discernable from the language or context.”  Mitchell County v. Zimmerman, 810 N.W.2d 1, 9-10 (Iowa 2012), quoting Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, 508 U.S. at 533.

“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.”  Olsen v. DEA, 878 F.2d at 1461, quoting Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228, 245 (1982).

Iowa Code § 124.302 lacks due process for religious exceptions and violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

In Olsen v. DEA, 878 F.2d at 1461, the DEA initially denied having a process for handling religious exemptions, but later acknowledged that Congress had given the Attorney General that authority.  The federal exemption for religious use of peyote by the Native American Church is a federal regulation, not a statute.  21 C.F.R. § 1307.31 is authorized in 36 FR 7801, Apr. 24, 1971, by 21 U.S.C. §§ 821, 822(d), 871(b).

The Uniform Act, has the same corresponding sections, 301 and 302(d), at pages 46-47.

The report of the 1971 Iowa Drug Abuse Study Committee has the same corresponding sections, 301 and 302(4), at pages 25-26.

In the Iowa act, 1971 Acts Chapter 148, section 302(4) is missing.  The Due Process was removed, and a statutory exception was added for the Native American Church (for which no other church can apply).

Iowa Code § 124.401(5)(c) lacks equal protection for religious exceptions and violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Olsen lost older cases because peyote was not used frequently and cannabis was.  Olsen v. DEA, 878 F.2d at 1471 (Buckely, J., dissenting) (“I find this reasoning less than compelling”).  Now, there is an exception for authorized use of cannabis in Iowa, which is the same plant.  Equal Protection analysis is no longer based on two different plants.  Equal Protection analysis is now based on the same plant.

The First Amendment test the U.S. Supreme Court articulated in Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 879 (1990), requires three elements: (1) a State law must be valid; (2) a State law must be neutral toward religion; and (3) a State law must be generally applicable.  See Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, 508 U.S. at 531 (“Neutrality and general applicability are interrelated, and, as becomes apparent in this case, failure to satisfy one requirement is a likely indication that the other has not been satisfied”).  Chapter 124 fails all three of these tests: (1) the Iowa CSA lacks due process; (2) the Iowa CSA lacks neutrality; and (3) the Iowa CSA lacks general applicability.

Justice Scalia warned that applying the compelling interest test to laws that are valid, neutral, and generally applicable, would “subvert its rigor in the other fields where it is applied.” Smith, 494 U.S. at 888.  The district court did exactly that here.  The district court denied the constitutional claims as if the statute were neutral and generally applicable, and then let the case proceed under the Iowa RFRA.  Iowa Code § 675.4(1) (“even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability”).

The district court skipped over the lack of due process, the lack of facial neutrality, and the lack of general applicablity in Chapter 124.  Instead, the district court cynically held that Olsen can practice his religion using chemically engineered THC the State authorized for sale to children in Iowa causing a spike in emergency room visits and reports to the Iowa Poison Control Center, products that Congress has now completely banned.  Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law,and Order (D0076), September 10, 2026, at pages 11-12.

The State witnesses said these chemically engineered THC products resulted in increased emergency room visits, Trial Tr. 77:4-24, and increased reports to the Iowa Poison Control Center, Trial Tr. 88:3-21.  If these products were legally available, any adult could use them without permission from the district court, just like alcohol and cigarettes (name your poison).  Olsen did not testify that his sacrament is THC.

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that RFRA claims should be handled with the same rigor as constitutional claims.  O Centro, 546 U.S. at 430 (“RFRA challenges should be adjudicated in the same manner as constitutionally mandated applications”).  Simply because the Iowa RFRA allows a statutory claim to proceed without a constitutional claim does not mean a constitutional claim should be ignored when there is one.

Chapter 204 is not a replacement for Chapter 124E.  Chapter 204 has resulted in serious injury to Iowans.  “Some of these products contain cannabinoids other than delta-9 THC at concentrations that can make the products intoxicating.”  Congressional Research Service, Changes to the Statutory Definition of Hemp and Implications for Agricultural Policy, In Focus IF13136, September 28, 2026.

Chapter 124E intentionally provides highly concentrated THC from cannabis plants.  THC is not Olsen’s sacrament.  Olsen’s sacrament is the cannabis plant.  Chapter 124E simply proves that no matter how much THC is in a cannabis plant used by Olsen, that amount will never exceed the amount of THC in the products approved for use by 23,000 Iowans on a daily basis without any medical supervision.

Olsen has always received strict scrutiny in the past.  Olsen v. Mukasey, 541 F.3d at 832 (“Strict scrutiny was the appropriate analysis”).  The way strict scrutiny was applied in those cases was always the same, comparing the religious use of cannabis by the Ethiopian Zion Coptic Church to the religious use of peyote by the Native American Church.

Since that time, cannabis has become widely accepted for medical use in the United State without a prescription.  This case is about comparing the accepted use of cannabis in Iowa, to make highly concentrated THC extracts for use without a prescription to the private religious use of cannabis by Olsen.  The accepted use of cannabis has three parts, (1) commercial, for-profit, cultivation and extraction of THC, (2) commercial, for-profit, distribution of THC, and (3) purchase and possession of THC.  Chapter 124E allows any cannabinoid, but THC is by far the most predominant.

This case is about one person.  This case is not about commercial production and distribution of highly concentrated THC products.

The question is not whether the State has the means to accommodate a religious exception, because that means was removed from the Iowa CSA when it was enacted.  The RFRA was enacted to create that means.  The State must explain why the private religious use of cannabis by Olsen under a lawful court order, an injunction, is a threat to public health and safety that a person using THC with a registration card is not.  THC is the only reason cannabis was prohibited, and now the State authorizes it to make highly concentrated THC extracts which it considers to be consistent with public health and safety.  The State expert witness said that Chapter 124E is consistent with public health and safety because there is a registration, Tr. 97:8-10, and because there are parameters around the use of THC, Tr. 97:12-13.  Parameters are also elements of an injunction and a court order is an official document just like a registration card.

A court order is indentification comparable to a registration card, so the parameters need to be compared.  The parameters are: (1) one person; (2) no sharing; (3) no public use; (4) a quantity limit.  The Petitioner will not share cannabis with anyone or use it in public, and is willing to self-impose a limit.  The THC limit can be waived, but a new limit must be specified, so it is unlmited in one sense, but not unlimited in the other, so it is a negotiation between the two parties.  The Petitioner will negotiate a reasonable quantity (plant and possession) limit as part of the terms and conditions of the court order, an injunction.  Minnesota has a plant and possession limit for personal use, so that provides a working example.

Comparing the differences, side by side:

While opinions may vary on what was being smoked in the Bible, the Bible refers to smoking something.  Trial Tr. 14:25 through 15:20.  Whatever the source of that smoke may be, medical professionals would never recommend smoking anything for medical use.

The State prohibits smoking tobacco in public places, Iowa Code § 142D.3.  Smoking tobacco in private is not prohibited, Iowa Code § 142D.4.  Chapter 142D has exceptions for the fairgrounds, department of corrections, and the national guard. Iowa Code § 142D.3(2)(e)(1), (2), and (3).

Because whole plant cannabis is not prohibited by Chapter 124E, the Iowa Medical Cannabidiol Board regularly receives requests to add whole plant cannabis to the list of approved vaporizable forms.  Ex. AA. at 26.  The board explains that whole plant medications are not precise formulations.  Ex. AA. at 27:

A search of the FDA website for approved “whole plant medications” yielded a short list of topical forms, none administered systemically, along with statements:

a.  “Whole-plant formulations often contain dozens or hundreds of chemical constituents. . . .not clear which constituents are responsible for therapeutic effect or toxicities.”

b.  “Ensuring consistent quality, purity, and potency in each batch is more challenging compared to a purified chemical [extract].”

The religious use of peyote by the Native American Church could not meet that standard.  Professional medical opinion dismissing whole plant medications as imprecise is not a compelling governmental interest that precludes a religious exception.

The Petitioner will not use cannabis in public.  The State prohibits smoking tobacco in public places, Iowa Code § 142D.3(1), but not in a private residence, Iowa Code § 142D.4(1).  Cannabis extracts cannot be used in places where a property owner objects.  Iowa Code § 124E.23.