Oklevueha Native American Church of Hawaii, Inc. v. Lynch
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 6275
9th Cir.2016Background
- Michael Rex Mooney (founder/"Medicine Custodian") and Oklevueha Native American Church of Hawaii claim cannabis is used sacramentally alongside peyote and other entheogens.
- They sued federal officials seeking RFRA and other relief to avoid CSA prosecution for possession, cultivation, and distribution of cannabis for religious use.
- District court dismissed several claims, left RFRA claim, then granted summary judgment for the government after finding scant admissible evidence about the religion and that plaintiffs failed to show a substantial burden.
- Plaintiffs appealed; Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo and assumed (without deciding) plaintiffs’ cannabis use could be religious exercise but evaluated the substantial-burden element.
- Plaintiffs admitted peyote is the primary sacrament and cannabis is a substitute; they produced no evidence that other sacramental substances were unavailable or that refusal to use cannabis would force them into criminal sanctions.
- Court affirmed summary judgment, holding plaintiffs failed to show the CSA’s prohibition imposes a RFRA-level substantial burden; AIRFA claim fails because it creates no private right of action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs’ cannabis use qualifies as an "exercise of religion" under RFRA | Cannabis use is a sacrament and part of religious ceremonies | Government challenged sufficiency of evidence showing religious exercise | Court assumed arguendo religious exercise but did not decide finally |
| Whether the CSA’s prohibition on cannabis substantially burdens plaintiffs’ religious exercise | Prohibition prevents sacramental use and coerces them to choose between faith and law | Plaintiffs admitted cannabis is a substitute for peyote and made no claim peyote is unavailable | No substantial burden; plaintiffs not coerced to violate beliefs or face sanctions |
| Whether government must justify prohibition under compelling interest/least restrictive means once burden shown | RFRA requires strict scrutiny if substantial burden proven | Government would argue compelling interest in controlling substances and no less restrictive means | Court did not reach strict scrutiny because no substantial burden shown |
| Whether AIRFA provides a private cause of action | AIRFA protects indigenous religious practices and supports plaintiffs’ claims | Government: AIRFA is a statement of policy and creates no enforceable rights | AIRFA claim dismissed; no judicially enforceable private right under AIRFA |
Key Cases Cited
- Navajo Nation v. U.S. Forest Serv., 535 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2008) (RFRA substantial-burden standard; coerced-choice formulation)
- Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2751 (2014) (RFRA substantial-burden analysis when government action forces conduct violating beliefs)
- Holt v. Hobbs, 135 S. Ct. 853 (2015) (RLUIPA/RFRA sister precedent on coerced-choice and substantial burden)
- Ruiz-Diaz v. United States, 703 F.3d 483 (9th Cir. 2012) (failure to show regulation affects ability to practice religion defeats RFRA claim)
- Snoqualmie Indian Tribe v. FERC, 545 F.3d 1207 (9th Cir. 2008) (no substantial burden where plaintiffs not coerced into a Catch-22)
- United States v. Antoine, 318 F.3d 919 (9th Cir. 2003) (RFRA precepts and framework)