OKLEVUEHA NATIVE AMERICAN CHURCH v. Holder
676 F.3d 829
| 9th Cir. | 2012Background
- Oklevueha Native American Church of Hawaii; Mooney claim NAC’s marijuana use as sacrament is protected by RFRA and First Amendment.
- NAC members (about 250 in Hawaii; ~500,000 nationwide) consume marijuana in religious ceremonies; peyote exemption exists for peyote, not marijuana.
- June 2009 FedEx seizure of one pound marijuana addressed to Mooney; seized marijuana destroyed by police.
- Plaintiffs seek declaratory/injunctive relief against CSA enforcement and return or compensation for seized marijuana.
- District court dismissed preenforcement and tort claims; RFRA damages claim dismissed for sovereign immunity; this appeal follows.
- Present action asserts ongoing risk of enforcement and seeks relief related to past seizure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are the preenforcement claims ripe for review? | Mooney/Oklevueha allege concrete threat; seizure already occurred. | Claims speculative; no imminent prosecution. | Yes; preenforcement claims ripe; seizure creates justiciable dispute. |
| Do Oklevueha members have associational standing to seek relief? | Members suffer direct injuries via religious marijuana use. | Standing lacking due to need for individual member details. | Yes; associational standing established. |
| Does RFRA authorize monetary damages or only injunctive relief? | RFRA's 'appropriate relief' includes damages. | RFRA does not unequivocally waive sovereign immunity for damages. | RFRA does not authorize monetary damages; claims for compensation are barred. |
Key Cases Cited
- Abbott Lab. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136 (1967) (ripeness—prevent premature adjudication)
- Babbitt v. United Farm Workers Nat'l Union, 442 U.S. 289 (1979) (credible threat of imminent prosecution not required in all cases)
- Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (2006) (RFRA challenge to CSA without exhaustion of exemptions allowed)
- Lane v. Pena, 518 U.S. 187 (1996) (sovereign immunity waivers must be unequivocally expressed)
- Sossamon v. Texas, 131 S. Ct. 1651 (2011) (RFRA/RLUIPA relief context—no clear monetary damages waiver)