676 F.3d 829
9th Cir.2012Background
- Oklevueha Native American Church of Hawaii and Mooney allege their religious use of marijuana is protected by RFRA and the First Amendment.
- A 2009 FedEx seizure of one pound of marijuana addressed to Mooney was destroyed by the government; plaintiffs seek injunctive relief and compensation.
- District court dismissed preenforcement claims as unripe and dismissed tort claims; RFRA damages claim barred by sovereign immunity.
- Plaintiffs allege NAC is a large, national religion with a primary sacramental use of marijuana; peyote exemption exists for NAC, but not marijuana.
- Court reviews dismissal de novo and addresses: (i) ripeness of preenforcement claims, (ii) associational standing, (iii) RFRA damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are preenforcement RFRA claims ripe? | Mooney/Oklevueha argue a concrete dispute exists from the seized marijuana. | Government contends no imminent prosecution threat and ripeness requires future enforcement. | Claims are ripe; seizure created a concrete dispute and associational standing exists. |
| Do Plaintiffs have associational standing to seek injunctive relief? | Oklevueha members use marijuana for religious practice, satisfying standing. | Associational standing requires specific member-by-member usage details; not met. | Oklevueha has associational standing to seek prospective relief. |
| Does RFRA authorize monetary damages against the federal government? | RFRA should provide all appropriate relief, including damages, to remedy burdens on religious exercise. | RFRA does not unambiguously waive sovereign immunity for damages; relief likely limited to injunctive/monetary equitable relief. | RFRA does not authorize monetary damages; claims for compensation are barred. |
Key Cases Cited
- Abbott Labs. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136 (1967) (ripeness involves concrete, not hypothetical, disputes)
- Babbitt v. United Farm Workers Nat’l Union, 442 U.S. 289 (1979) (genuine threat allows preenforcement challenge)
- Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (2006) (RFRA exemptions may be recognized without exhaustion)
- Lane v. Pena, 518 U.S. 187 (1996) (unambiguous waiver of sovereign immunity required for damages)
- Sossamon v. Texas, 131 S. Ct. 1651 (2011) (RFRA damages analysis analogous to RLUIPA context; no clear damages waiver)
- Thomas v. Anchorage Equal Rights Comm’n, 220 F.3d 1134 (2000) (concrete dispute supports ripeness; exceptions for preenforcement claims)
- Colwell v. Dept. of Health & Human Servs., 558 F.3d 1112 (2009) (prudential ripeness requires concrete factual situation; injunctive scope can be clarified later)
- Ry. Mail Ass’n v. Corsi, 326 U.S. 88 (1945) (case-or-controversy requirement; concrete dispute sufficient)
- Sossamon v. Texas, 131 S. Ct. 1651 (2011) (express private remedy in RFRA is not clearly damages-based)
- Webman v. F.B.O.P., 441 F.3d 1022 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (RFRA damages not unambiguously waived)