Psychedelic church first to receive ayahuasca RFRA exemption from DEA without lawsuit
The Church of Gaia reports receiving the first religious exemption to the Controlled Substances Act from DEA without a lawsuit
Updated May 21, 2025 with additional details on the Church of Gaia, its attorneys, and their legal strategy.
A psychedelic church has reported receiving the first religious exemption to the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) without filing a lawsuit against the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).
The Church of Gaia, based in Spokane, Washington, views ayahuasca as a religious sacrament, as do several Indigenous communities of South America’s Amazon basin. Prior to consuming ayahuasca, practitioners brew the tea by combining Psychotria viridis and Banisteriopsis caapi, plants native to the Amazon.
Lawyers Pat Donahue and Taylor Loyden of Terrapin Legal advised the Church of Gaia during its DEA petition process. Attorney John Rapp laid much of the groundwork for its unorthodox legal strategy—the church vowed to suspend its use of ayahuasca while awaiting DEA’s decision. According to Rapp, “Gaia’s the first DEA petitioner to suspend practice — a moving show of lawful intent.”
Technically, DEA has long provided a path for religious groups to receive CSA exemptions under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Congress enacted RFRA in 1993, shortly after the infamous 1990 Supreme Court case Employment Division of Oregon v. Smith.
Al Smith was fired from his job for participating in peyote ceremonies held by the Native American Church. When Smith applied for unemployment benefits, the state denied his application. Oregon claimed Smith was ineligible because he was fired for violating the state’s criminal drug law. Smith sued, challenging the constitutionality of Oregon’s law, which had restricted his religious freedom.
Although lower courts ruled for Smith, he lost after the U.S. Supreme Court heard his case. In a famous opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that Smith should not prevail because Oregon’s law did not target religious practice. It was a law of general applicability. In other words, it applied equally to everyone, religious and secular.
The Smith case shocked religious communities. Prior Supreme Court opinions were deeply skeptical when government actions substantial burdened religious practice. Before Smith, such actions had to meet strict scrutiny, the most demanding legal standard, to survive constitutional challenges. But after Smith, courts could presume that government burdens on religious practice were constitutional, if they were neutral and did not target religion. In response, a broad coalition lobbied Congress to strengthen federal protections for religion, even against neutral laws. Congress responded with RFRA in 1993.
In theory, RFRA exemptions to CSA regulations would allow religious communities to import, store, dispense, and consume Schedule I controlled substances that are central to their spiritual practices. However, until recently, no churches had received a RFRA exemption without suing DEA. Even then, only a few succeeded.
In the 2006 Supreme Court case Gonzales v. UDV, a group named O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal (UDV) won a RFRA exemption. The victory allowed the UDV to import ayahuasca from Brazil. In 2009, a U.S. District Court handed a similar exemption to an Oregon branch of the Santo Daime Church.
Other RFRA petitions languished on DEA’s desk. According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), DEA received twenty four petitions in the eight-year period from 2016 to 2024. None were granted. After waiting for years, some groups withdrew their petitions.
In early 2024, GAO published a report urging DEA to improve its religious exemption process for psilocybin-producing mushrooms and other controlled substances. Around that time, the Church of the Eagle and the Condor settled a lawsuit with DEA. The settlement provided the RFRA exemption sought by the church. But it came at the cost of having to wage a legal battle against DEA.
The Church of Gaia appears to have received the first RFRA exemption granted through the petition process, without litigation. On Thursday, it published a press release announcing the outcome of its DEA petition. According to the church, “Gaia’s religious traditions are rooted in deep spiritual beliefs, and its sacramental practices will be conducted in a respectful and structured setting. In accordance with their agreement with the DEA, the church is required to adhere to stringent security protocols.”
Does this outcome reflect a new era for religious exemptions at DEA following GAO’s report calling for reform? Did the church’s success result from effective negotiating by its legal team and its pledge to abstain from consuming ayahuasca? Perhaps a combination of factors? Only time will tell if other legal teams can obtain similar results for their clients.
One thing appears certain, interest in religious use of psychedelics appears to be growing. New psychedelic churches frequently emerge. And some established religious groups, including Christians, Jews, and Muslims, are integrating psychedelics into longstanding practices.
*The views expressed on Psychedelic Week do not represent the views of Harvard University, POPLAR at the Petrie-Flom Center at Harvard Law School, Florida State University or its College of Law, or Yale University. Psychedelic Week is an independent project unaffiliated with these and other programs and institutions.
Mason Marks, MD, JD is the Florida Bar Health Law Section Professor at Florida State University. He is the senior fellow and project lead of the Project on Psychedelics Law and Regulation (POPLAR) at the Petrie-Flom Center at Harvard Law School, and a visiting fellowat the Information Society Project at Yale Law School. Professor Marks teaches drug law, psychedelic law, constitutional law, and administrative law. His forthcoming book on psychedelic law and politics will be published by Yale University Press. He tweets at @MasonMarksMD and @PsychedelicWeek. Follow him on LinkedIn and Bluesky.