The Church of Gaia announced on Friday that it has been "granted the first-ever approval for a Petition for Religious Exemption from the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) pursuant to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA)." This exemption permits the Church to legally use Ayahuasca in its religious ceremonies, making it one of only a handful of churches in the United States with federally recognized legal access to the spiritual entheogen in religious ceremonies. Gaia is based in Spokane, Washington and you can view their website here.
In 2009, the DEA established a non-litigious pathway for religious organizations to seek exemption from the CSA for the sacramental use of controlled substances. However, until now, no formal exemption had ever been granted under that policy. While Gaia's exemption is a historic development, and quite worthy of celebration, it also highlights a continuing challenge – the lack of transparency in DEA decision-making.
DEA settlements and agreements are not usually made public and are often protected by confidentiality agreements. As such, other churches may neither benefit from knowing Gaia's petition, nor rely on its contents to support their own exemption requests. This stands in contrast to litigation, where court opinions provide public precedent and a roadmap for successful (and unsuccessful) arguments. It remains unknown whether Gaia is permitted to, or willing to, share its agreement with DEA. However, given that DEA regulations prohibit publicly disclosing even a registration certificate, it would not be surprising if the agreement is subject to strict confidentiality requirements.
As I've written previously in "'Sincere Religious Belief' is an Evolving Standard for Psychedelic Churches", access to case law is critical in building strong exemption petitions. For example, under RFRA, a church must demonstrate that its religious beliefs are sincerely held and that the use of a controlled substance is central to its religious practice. One question that arises from prior critiques of unsuccessful petitions is how Gaia was able to satisfy this requirement if it suspended its sacramental use pending DEA approval. Typically, delaying religious practice until government permission is granted can undermine claims of necessity and sincerity. While Gaia's success is encouraging, without clarity on how it addressed this and similar challenges, the exemption may offer limited value as a model for other churches seeking similar relief.
That said, any pathway that ensures safe, structured, and legally protected access to sacramental entheogens should be supported and pursued. But without litigation, future exemptions, including this one, remain vulnerable to changes in DEA leadership and political priorities.
For churches seeking to follow the Church of Gaia's example, it's essential to proceed thoughtfully. This includes engaging qualified counsel early in the process, building robust internal safety and compliance protocols, and preparing a petition that can withstand rigorous legal and regulatory scrutiny. Without such guidance, even sincere religious communities risk delay, or denial, of their sacred rights.
To view the original article click here
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
