United States v. Sherryanne Christie
825 F.3d 1048
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- Rev. Roger C. Christie founded the Hawaii Cannabis Ministry (Hilo) to use and distribute cannabis as a sacrament; Sherryanne Christie later became an ordained minister and co-leader.
- The Ministry openly recruited thousands of members, sold "Sanctuary Kits," and distributed cannabis via Sunday "communion" and an "express" in-person pickup service, often in exchange for suggested donations; minors could join.
- Law enforcement uncovered large-scale cultivation and distribution (including 284 plants on an associate’s farm) and evidence of loose membership and lax distribution controls that risked diversion to non-members and the black market.
- A grand jury indicted the Christies on multiple CSA counts; they pled guilty to conspiracy to manufacture and distribute marijuana (Rev. Christie: ≥100 plants; Sherryanne: ≥50 plants) and were sentenced to prison and supervised release. They appealed.
- On appeal the court assumed (without deciding) the Christies established a prima facie RFRA claim (sincere religious belief, burden), then evaluated whether the government met RFRA’s strict-scrutiny burden (compelling interest and least-restrictive means).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether RFRA bars prosecution for religious use/distribution of marijuana | Christies: RFRA protects their sacramental use/distribution; prosecution substantially burdens sincere religious exercise | Gov't: Enforcing CSA is necessary to prevent diversion and protect public/children; RFRA permits burden if strict scrutiny satisfied | Held for gov't: compelling interest in preventing diversion; RFRA defense rejected because full CSA enforcement is least-restrictive means |
| Whether RFRA is unconstitutionally vague (void-for-vagueness / rule of lenity) | Christies: RFRA’s open-ended balancing makes criminal exposure unpredictable; indictments should be dismissed | Gov't: RFRA is an affirmative defense, not a penal statute; vagueness/lenity do not apply to defenses | Held for gov't: RFRA not a vague penal law; vagueness and lenity arguments fail |
| Whether CSA’s Schedule I classification of marijuana is irrational (Due Process) | Christies: Marijuana classification is arbitrary and lacks rational basis | Gov't: Precedent upholds classification; Miroyan controls | Held for gov't: Prior precedent forecloses rational-basis challenge; classification sustained |
| Whether wiretap authorizations and affidavits satisfied statutory necessity / whether Franks hearing required | Christies: Affidavits contained boilerplate and at least one false statement (cash-and-carry); request for Franks hearing | Gov't: Extensive investigatory history showed necessity; misstatement immaterial; affidavits adequate | Held for gov't: Affidavits met §2518(1)(c) necessity standard; issuing court did not abuse discretion; no Franks hearing warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (RFRA requires a focused, case-specific compelling-interest inquiry)
- Employment Div. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (Free Exercise Clause does not exempt compliance with neutral laws of general applicability)
- Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2751 (RFRA strict-scrutiny framework applied to federal law)
- Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (religious exemption where government interests could be met less restrictively)
- Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (standard of review for historical findings underlying legal conclusions)
- United States v. Miroyan, 577 F.2d 489 (9th Cir.) (upholding marijuana scheduling rational-basis challenge precedent)
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (standard for evidentiary hearing when affidavit contains alleged false statements)
- United States v. Rivera, 527 F.3d 891 (9th Cir.) (wiretap necessity review and common-sense standard)