Singularism, a religious sect located in Utah, established that the government has interfered with their religious exercise. Singularism practices their religion with the use of psilocybin as a sacred worship. They are a small religious group based in Provo, Utah, known for their peaceful community. Members of secularism have claimed that government authorities harassed their faith. The members asserted that police suddenly searched the spiritual center and interrogated SIngularism's founder. The police proceeded to seize Singularism's sacramental psilocybin (Jensen). Singularism members argue that these actions contrast their use of sincere and non-threatening religious practices, as the use of psilocybin is used according to religious sincerity protocols. Days following, law enforcement served a letter to the landlord of Singularism's center landlord, notifying the need to evict Singularism, or the government would exercise civil forfeiture proceedings.
On February 20, 2025, a Utah federal district issued a preliminary injunction under Utah's Religious Freedom Restoration Act. This is the first lawsuit under the Act and has become a federal case intended to challenge government overreach. The plaintiffs are asking the Court to order the state of Utah from enforcing the Utah Controlled Substances Act that prevents Singularism from using Psilocybin. Plaintiffs argue that the Act burdens their free exercise right. Their members use psilocybin to help them embark on a spiritual journey to discover truths. Members explained how they approached local enforcement before their center was searched. Singularism sent a standing invitation to "local government to engage in dialogue and to tour its spiritual center a year before" (Jensen). However, the local government never followed up. Instead, law enforcement chose to enter the center without notice and never issued an arrest but stated to the religion's founder that they should expect criminal charges. These actions demonstrate local authorities' discrimination against minority religions by disregarding the opportunity to learn about the group's practices.
The defendants argue the sincerity of Singularism practices. Notably, the defendants looked at Singularim's claims. Including the Singularism faith, which "does not claim special access to divine truths." Due to the lack of answers to important questions in religion, they seek falsity in their religion. The defendants insisted that their practices help with discovery instead of being a formal religion, therefore challenging the sincerity of the faith. These practices argued show Singularism's lack of answers to religious questions, weakening its claim to be a religion.
The case ultimately challenges Singularism free exercise but also challenges state interest, as the Utah Controlled Substances Act prohibits use of psilocybin. While it may be challenging to determine what qualifies the sincerity of religion, it is unfair to prevent the practices of groups based on subjective interpretations of what constitutes a 'true' religion. The United States v. Ballard case (1944) illustrates a similar point, as the court ruled whether they could validate "the truth or falsity of religious views." While it may be challenging to believe or find the religion credible, it is not the decision of the Court. The Court ruled in favor of Ballard, acknowledging that the government has to respect individuals' choices to practice their faith.
The case ultimately challenges Singularism free exercise but also challenges state interest, as the Utah Controlled Substances Act prohibits use of psilocybin. While it may be challenging to determine what qualifies the sincerity of religion, it is unfair to prevent the practices of groups based on subjective interpretations of what constitutes a 'true' religion. The United States v. Ballard case (1944) illustrates a similar point, as the court ruled whether they could validate "the truth or falsity of religious views." While it may be challenging to believe or find the religion credible, it is not the decision of the Court. The Court ruled in favor of Ballard, acknowledging that the government has to respect individuals' choices to practice their faith.
Similarly, while others may be skeptical of Singularism's use of psilocybin, the Court needs to respect their practices. The case established that religious beliefs could not be questioned in a legal context, but fraudulent actions disguised as religious activity could be regulated. If the Court were to find the psilocybin endangering members, then they could rule accordingly. However, Singularism practices with psilocybin have remained peaceful, not putting members in danger.
In my opinion, if the Court ruled against Singularism practices, it would lead to a slippery slope, setting a dangerous precedent that the Court has the jurisdiction to determine the credibility of religious groups. The Free Exercise Clause protects minority groups, regardless of the display of unconventional practices. Additionally, Utah's Religious Freedom Restoration Act. was passed to protect religious groups. The act "essentially acts as a proactive "blanket" protection by giving state government a higher threshold of religious exercise protection" (Sutherfield). The actions of Utah law enforcement undermine the goals of the Act, by discriminating against minority groups. The RFRA is supposed to demonstrate that the religion's actions burden a compelling state interest. When law enforcement entered the Singularism Center, they claimed they were potentially subjected to criminalization because they were unfamiliar with their practices. Therefore, it challenges the promises protected by RFRA by discriminatory actions against Singularism. It is important for the Supreme Court to respect the practices of Singularism, even if seeming unconventional.
Sources:
https://religionclause.blogspot.com/2025/02/utah-rfra-protects-psilocybin-using.html
https://sutherlandinstitute.org/what-you-need-to-know-about-a-proposed-religious-freedom-restoration-act-in-utah/
https://www.einpresswire.com/article/766508064/psychedelic-church-takes-federal-action-against-alleged-government-harassment-in-landmark-religious-freedom-case
4 comments:
This case raises the questions of religious freedom and the limits of government intervention. While the use of psilocybin may seem unconventional, you were right to point out that the United States v. Ballard precedent is meant to protect religious practices from the government deciding their sincerity. I feel that the government's actions against Singularism are an overreach, and that the principle of religious freedom is supposed to protect even unpopular or misunderstood minority religions, as long as they do not cause harm.
I agree with your conclusion, if the government was able to restrict psilocybin for the Singularists then what is preventing states from enacting similar legislation prohibiting what a group uses for worship. I think that your diagnosis of a slippery slope is perfect to describe the situation at hand.
United States v. Ballard makes a strong case that it is not the court's decision to decide the truth or falsity of religion. This question is similar in sincerity to religious practices and their intent. The court should not be left to decide whether one's beliefs are valid, but I do believe they can restrict certain practices. I believe that the US government has a compelling state interest in preventing state residents' usage of drugs. There are many different slippery slope approaches to a situation where we declare it is okay for psilocybin usage. For example, what if other churches use cocaine or heroin? How are the under-the-influence people getting home? Can all ages use it? The government has to be able to provide some restrictions to maintain peace and good order in the community.
I am unsure on this, but I think I am ultimately going to disagree, as religious freedom has limits, and especially should when it comes to illegal substances. Utah prohibits psilocybin, and in my opinion, we should evaluate his sincerity here, as his beliefs come off as more philosophical than religious. All in all, Courts need to balance religion with public safety, and this could also lead to a slippery slope for exemptions with substances moving forward.
Post a Comment