What shapes the way we see our bodies? Allure Perspectives, hosted by Allure editor-in-chief Jessica Cruel, explores breasts through beauty, health, identity, and culture. Expect expert insights, candid personal stories, and honest conversations about the things we rarely talk about openly.

Available wherever you get podcasts.

OPINION · PARTNER CONTENT ·

By Ron McNutt

Founder’s Note: Psychedelic Lawfare is published in partnership with The Psychedelic Bar Association. The views expressed are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect those of Psychedelic State(s) of America.

Singularism is a syncretic church based in Utah that employs psilocybin mushrooms as a ceremonial sacrament. Founded as a multi-universal religion encompassing contradiction, it encompasses diverse outlooks, including principles from philosophy, the clinical and social sciences, and the major world religions. While it maintains the identity of a church and is asserting its right to constitutional and statutory religious freedom protection, unlike many churches, Singularism makes no claim to know the answers to all of life’s biggest questions.

Bridger Jensen, Singularism’s founder, is a former therapist who became a spiritual care provider. On November 11, 2024, Jensen and the church were subject to a search and had 450 grams of sacramental dried psilocybin mushrooms seized, as well as documentary records of the church. Mr. Jensen was charged with possession of psilocybin with intent to distribute. Prior to the seizure, Singularism had registered with the Utah Secretary of State as a church and had established ceremonial risk reduction practices which were in place for about two years prior to the seizure.

On November 19, 2024, Jensen and Singularism filed suit in state court against the municipalities and the prosecutor asserting rights under several laws, including the Utah Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the Utah constitution, the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the US Constitution, their rights to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

These seizures took place after Utah had adopted a state-level Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Utah Code Ann. § 63G-33-201(2)(a), (3). This law offers broad protection of religious liberty and forbids state government officials from substantially burdening the free exercise of religion, regardless of whether the burden results from a rule of general application, unless the government demonstrates: a) that it is essential to furthering a compelling state interest, and b) that it is the least restrictive means of furthering the compelling state interest. Utah Code Ann. §§ 63G-33-101(6)(b)(ii)(A)(1) and 63G-33-201(2)(a) and (3). Utah’s law, like the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act requires strict scrutiny review of laws of general application that burden religious exercise.

Significantly, the seizures also took place after Utah’s enactment of Senate Bill 266, which created a three-year pilot program allowing medical providers at two large healthcare systems to prescribe psilocybin and MDMA as behavioral health treatments, effective May 1, 2024. This affected the district court’s analysis, which applied strict scrutiny review to the Singularism seizure, holding the state-regulated medical program meant that the controlled substances laws of Utah did not provide equal protection for psilocybin within the spiritual tradition.

On November 27, 2024, the defendants removed the case to federal court, where Singularism won a temporary restraining order against the defendants on December 13, 2024. The district court held that Singularism had shown a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of its state law religious freedom claim. Five days after the temporary restraining order issued, the government instituted criminal proceedings against Jensen. During this time, the government was making discovery demands insisting on discovery that required identifying information for each of its members. There was a ruling that the requests were offensively broad and the court sealed the record.

Holding that Singularism showed likelihood of success at a preliminary stage of the case, U.S. District Judge Jill Parrish granted church officials' request for a preliminary injunction against city and county officials on February 20th, 2025. Jensen v. Utah County, 2025 WL 582812, Case No. 2:24-cv-00887-JNP-CMR, (D. Utah February 20, 2025). The court ordered both the city and county government to return the mushrooms and not to interfere with the group's "sincere religious use of psilocybin" while the case was pending.

The trial judge found that despite its unconventional structure, Singularism qualified as a bona fide religion that was entitled to protection. The court recognized the existential humility of church leadership in not claiming all authoritative beliefs or imposing dogma as consistent with a showing of its religious sincerity, which is a required element for legal protection.

After the government filed charges against Mr. Jensen, the plaintiffs moved for an anti-suit injunction against the state criminal prosecution under the Anti-Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2283. The court in Jensen held that the criminal prosecution and assertion of the Utah Controlled Substances Act against Jensen and Singularism were substantial burdens on their freedom of religion under the First Amendment. On August 4, 2025, the federal district court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction and denied the government defendants’ motion to dismiss Singularism’s claims asserted under the First and Fourth amendments, and the Utah provisions of a Religious Freedom Restoration Act, (RFRA) Utah Code Ann. § 63G-33-101 et seq.

The court in Jensen held that the state prosecution subverted the purposes of the removal statute by giving the government two opportunities to litigate the issues. It held the plaintiffs’ allegations were supported by the evidence, and that the criminal prosecution and assertion of the Utah Controlled Substances Act against them were substantial burdens on their freedom of religion. Jensen v. Utah County opinion, at page 18. The court observed that there has been no evidence so far that the plaintiffs’ psilocybin use undermines the government’s interests.

The court held that an exemption like one afforded for the Native American Church of North America’s religious use of peyote was a less restrictive means than prohibition. A pending criminal prosecution against the church's founder was enjoined by the court and it was dismissed without prejudice. The court held that the government must have an even-handed approach, and not burden religion with prohibitions not imposed against secular conduct, like the research in medical institutions with psilocybin, as enacted by the Utah legislature.

The government appealed the District Court ruling. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and held on October 5, 2026, that the trial court improperly enjoined the criminal prosecution and that it should have abstained from interfering with the state criminal prosecution. The court stressed that abstention is the usual course for ongoing criminal charges. No. 25-4115, at 5. The Tenth Circuit held that the state authorities were entitled to force the litigation of the constitutional issues in the state criminal case. Id. at 10. There was an insufficient basis to abstain on the basis of bad faith or harassment. Id. at 11-12. The Tenth Circuit noted the trial court held that the plaintiffs could raise the RFRA and state and federal constitutional claims as defenses in the state court proceeding. Id. at 13.

The Tenth Circuit Court distinguished the activity of the state allowing the use of psilocybin for qualified healthcare systems, which was important for the First Amendment analysis. It discussed the criminal prohibition of psilocybin under state law as a law of general applicability, and held that the district court erred by concluding that there was a First Amendment violation. Id. at 17. It held that strict scrutiny of the prohibition of psilocybin was not warranted, and that it only required a rational basis for justification. The Court of Appeals noted that two recent Supreme Court opinions, Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, 593 U.S. 522, 533-34 (2021) and Tandon v. Newsom, 593 U.S. 61, 63 (2021) (per curiam), held that the Free Exercise Clause requires strict scrutiny review in cases where a law permits secular activities but prohibit “comparable religious activites.” In such cases, the government must show that the religious activities are more dangerous “even when the same precautions are applied.” Id. at 21 n. 10.

The court distinguished the Fulton and Tandon line of analysis, stating the Utah laws allowing qualified health systems to employ psilocybin as an experimental treatment. Id. at 19. The law allows qualified healthcare systems that are closely affiliated with an institution of higher learning or operating at least 15 hospitals to employ psilocybin in a behavioral health treatment program if supported by research. Id. at 20. Hospitals had to meet the regulatory standards for pharmaceutical and psychiatric services. Id., citing Utah Code Ann. § 58-37-309. The distinction between Singularism’s use of psilocybin was also contrasted by the Tenth Circuit by noting that Singularism advised its participants to rely on clinical advice from medical professionals. Id. at 21.

This distinction was important because the district court in Jensen held that the state could not prohibit religious conduct while permitting secular conduct that affected the government’s asserted interests in a similar way by permitting use of psilocybin for mental healthcare. Allowing psilocybin in those circumstances led the district court to recognize First Amendment free exercise of religion protection because of the disparate treatment for the psilocybin-based clinical psilocybin initiative.

This First Amendment protection was recently discussed in an article by Elizabeth Sepper in the Yale Journal on Regulation, “Psychedelic Churches in a Time of Religious Exemption,” September 24, 2026. It highlights a receptivity to religious exemption claims that ironically comes from a culturally conservative Supreme Court's more solicitous protection of organized religion. The article observes that:

The Tenth Circuit held that there was also an exemption allowed, under Utah Code Ann. § 58-37-105(2)(d), from licensing requirements when consistent with public health. The court remanded the case for the trial court to decide whether the individualized exemptions would trigger strict scrutiny, as well as Singularism’s Fourth Amendment claim. Id. at 25.

The Tenth Circuit held, importantly, that it would not disturb the preliminary injunction. Id. p. 27 n. 11. The district court had entered a preliminary injunction in favor of Singularism and Jensen at a preliminary stage in pleadings, before the entry of the injunction. At the end of its opinion, on page 27, note 11, the Tenth Circuit held:

The most important issue on remand will be considering Singularism under the Utah Religious Freedom Restoration Act. It predominates in this lawsuit. This act was viewed by the district court, along with rights under the Utah constitution, to provide protection equal to or greater than the protections of the United States Constitution. Memorandum Opinion (Aug. 4, 2025) at 11. The state officials invoked state law to claim authority to conduct the raid on Jensen and Singularism, but they were subject to the Utah Religious Freedom Restoration Act. On remand, the Utah Religious Freedom Restoration Act continues to protect Singularism’s practices and exposes the Utah officials to potential liability under state law and First and Fourth Amendment provisions.

The appellees, Singularism and Jensen, have filed a motion for a rehearing en banc requesting the entire Tenth Circuit hear its arguments. Concerns remain about the potential for re-prosecution of Jensen and the church. The case has proceeded through significant levels of review and will continue to wind its way through the courts. The case could set new precedent in the law of religious freedom and psychedelics, as it could be the first case in which a court determines that entheogenic religious liberties are not limited to churches that incorporate Judeo-Christian beliefs and liturgies into their own.

Disclosure: The Psychedelic Bar Association is a PSA media partner.

Enjoyed this column? Subscribe to Psychedelic State(s) of America and share this column with someone who should read it.

Founder’s Note: Psychedelic Lawfare is a new guest column series, presented by Psychedelic State(s) of America and powered by The Psychedelic Bar Association.

If you'd rather not receive future editions of Psychedelic Lawfare, no worries — we get it!

You can always choose which PSA series land in your inbox without unsubscribing from PSA.

Until next time,

The Psychedelic State(s) of America Team