One year ago, Utah lawmakers unanimously enacted new religious liberty protections, bucking the national trend toward skepticism that’s led some legislators to put “religious freedom” in scare quotes.
SB150, called the Exercise of Religion Amendments, created a state-level Religious Freedom Restoration Act that gives Utahns more power to challenge government actions that interfere with their religious beliefs.
“In a world that’s increasingly hostile to religion, these amendments are an important expression of Utah’s long-established commitment to religious freedom,” said Rep. Jordan Teuscher, R-South Jordan, the bill’s house floor sponsor, in February 2024.
SB150 was signed into law the next month. Eight months after that, in November, it was cited in a case that’s testing the limits of that long-established commitment by asking whether religious freedom protections extend to a new faith group using psychedelic mushrooms in its ceremonies.
The faith group, Singularism, claims government officials in Provo, Utah, and Utah County violated Utah’s new Religious Freedom Restoration Act, among other laws, when they seized the group’s psilocybin and scriptures in November.
The officials, on the other hand, say Singularism is motivated by a desire to sell illegal drugs, not to practice and promote a religious faith.
In late February, almost exactly one year after Teuscher reflected on the value of robust religious freedom protections, a federal judge granted Singularism’s request for a preliminary injunction, ruling that government officials in Utah cannot claim to support religious freedom if they prevent Singularism’s practitioners from living according to their beliefs.
“For that guarantee of religious liberty to mean anything, the laws must protect unfamiliar religions equally with familiar ones, both in design and in practice,” wrote District Court Judge Jill N. Parrish.
The ruling caught the attention of religious freedom experts nationwide, who say the first-of-its-kind Utah case raises familiar but still hotly debated questions about the purpose and scope of religious liberty laws.
What is Singularism?
Singularism’s founder, Bridger Lee Jensen, says he didn’t set out to test the limits of Utah’s religious freedom protections.
He says his goal was to share his spiritual beliefs with others and enable them to deepen their faith through psilocybin tea ceremonies, just as he has.
In late 2023, Jensen, who grew up in Provo and previously worked as a mental health therapist, opened Singularism’s spiritual center, which is located in an office park near Utah Valley Hospital. He said he invited local officials to visit and learn more, but no one took him up on the offer.
Jensen describes Singularism as a “nondogmatic, spirituality-based religion” that doesn’t have members in a traditional sense. Potential practitioners are screened before they take part in ceremonies. Insights shared by the people who take part, called “voyagers,” are added to the group’s scriptures.
In November 2024, about a year after the spiritual center opened, Provo Police obtained and served a search warrant, and confiscated the group’s psilocybin and scriptures. Officials claimed the group was violating the Utah Controlled Substances Act.
Citing religious freedom protections, Jensen challenged officials' actions in state court, arguing that Singularism has a right to a faith-based exemption to the controlled substances law.
Officials rejected that claim, arguing that Singularism should not be seen as a religion and that the government has a compelling interest in preventing the group from distributing drugs.
After government officials had the case moved to federal court, Judge Parrish issued a temporary restraining order requiring officials to return what they’d taken. But five days later, officials charged Jensen with possession of psilocybin with the intent to distribute, possession of THC and use or possession of drug paraphernalia.
As Jensen fought for the criminal case to be put on hold, the federal religious freedom case moved forward. On Feb. 20, Parrish granted Singularism’s request for a preliminary injunction, which allows the group to continue holding its ceremonies while the case plays out.
Old battles made new
Although Singularism is a new religious group and Utah’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act is a new law, the current legal battle has much in common with two cases that remade the federal religious freedom landscape in the 1990s and early 2000s.
The first, Employment Division v. Smith, centered on the religious use of peyote. The Native Americans who brought the case were fighting for a faith-based exemption from employment laws prohibiting drug use.
In rejecting their religious freedom claims, the Supreme Court in 1990 weakened the legal protections offered by the First Amendment’s free exercise clause, prompting Congress to pass the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act three years later.
During a signing ceremony for the law in November 1993, President Bill Clinton said the country is stronger when people of all faiths and no faith are free to live according to their beliefs.
“Let us never believe that the freedom of religion imposes on any of us some responsibility to run from our convictions. Let us instead respect one another’s faiths (and) fight to the death to preserve the right of every American to practice whatever convictions he or she has,” he said.
The power of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act was on display in 2006 when the Supreme Court ruled for a little-known religious group in a case called Gonzales v. O Centro.
The government had sought to prevent the group from using a controlled substance called hoasca in its religious ceremonies, arguing that the drug posed health risks and was susceptible to abuse.
But the justices unanimously ruled in favor of O Centro, rejecting the government’s claim that the Controlled Substances Act would fail if faith-based exemptions were available.
The O Centro case showed you don’t have to be a large, mainstream faith group to win a case under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act or laws like it — and that’s still true today, said Josh McDaniel, faculty director of Harvard Law School’s Religious Freedom Clinic.
Religious Freedom Restoration Act cases
In cases involving a Religious Freedom Restoration Act, judges typically consider four key questions:
- Are the religious claims sincere?
- Are religious practices or beliefs being substantially burdened by government interference?
- Does the government have a compelling interest driving the interference?
- Is there some other, less restrictive way for the government to satisfy its compelling interest?
In general, rulings in these types of cases center on the final two questions. The court either accepts the government’s explanation for its actions or determines that officials haven’t done enough to accommodate the religious group or individual involved.
But in cases involving the use of psilocybin, marijuana or other mind-altering substances, the judge or judges often spend more time than usual analyzing the sincerity of the faith group and may even base their ruling on that question, said McDaniel, who recently spoke at a symposium on religion and psychedelics.
That’s especially true when the faith group involved was only recently founded, he added.
“In some marijuana cases, courts have said this is not a legitimate religious practice, that it appears this is essentially a drug-distribution enterprise that’s cloaked in religion,” he said.
But in the Singularism case, Judge Parrish said the opposite, writing that she had no difficulty concluding that Singularism’s leaders and “voyagers” sincerely believe psilocybin tea ceremonies help them deepen their faith.
“From all the evidence in the record, the court is hard-pressed to find, as Defendants urge, that Singularism is essentially a drug-dealing business cloaked in a minister’s robe,” Parrish wrote.
Her decision is believed to be one of the first, if not the first, rulings in favor of a group making First Amendment or Religious Freedom Restoration Act claims about psilocybin use, according to Tanner Bean, an attorney at Fabian Vancott who represents Jensen and Singularism.
What comes next?
Parrish’s February ruling brought relief to Jensen and Singularism, but the legal battle likely won’t be over anytime soon.
The judge is still considering a variety of motions, including one that could send the case back to the state court system. The government may appeal the preliminary injunction or forthcoming orders. And Jensen is still facing criminal charges related to psilocybin possession.
Jensen and others involved with Singularism are also worried about mounting legal bills, and they’ve launched a legal defense fundraiser in hopes of being able to withstand whatever legal moves come next.
No matter how the case turns out, it will be a significant chapter in Utah’s religious freedom history, as well as in the national debate over religious liberty in general and religion and psychedelics in particular.
Although religious freedom cases involving Christian groups that oppose same-sex marriage or abortion often get more attention, it’s cases brought by unfamiliar, non-mainstream groups that often challenge religious freedom advocates most, experts said.