Outline

Jason Karimi petitions the court to enjoin the state from interfering with the religious use of cannabis pursuant to SD Codified L § 1-1A-4 (2021) the “Religious Freedom Restoration Act.”

PARTIES

1. Petitioner, Jason Karimi, (“Karimi”) is a resident of Minnehaha County, South Dakota.
2. Respondent, State of South Dakota, (“State”), has its permanent seat of government in , Hughes County, South Dakota.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3. This action arises pursuant to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. SD Codified L § 1-1A-4 (2021)  (what month and day 2021) (2025).

4. This court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to SDCL 15-5-2, “Venue where cause of action arose,” SDCL 15-5-8, “Venue of actions for conversion or recovery of damages,” and SDCL 16-6-9, “Original civil jurisdiction of circuit court.” https://sdlegislature.gov/Statutes/15-5-2   https://sdlegislature.gov/Statutes/15-5-8 https://sdlegislature.gov/Statutes/16-6-9 Iowa Code § 602.6101 (2025).

5. Venue is proper in this court pursuant to SDCL 16-6-9, “Original civil jurisdiction of circuit court (I think, and delete that same from line item 4??) Iowa Code § 616.3(2)(2025) because this matter arises in Minnehaha County.

***34-20G-96    Probationer or parolee use–Practitioner attestation.***

DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

6.

Mr. Karimi requests the court to enjoin the state from interfering with the religious use of cannabis, pursuant to:

1. the Constitution of the United States;
2. the South Dakota Constitution; and
3. the South Dakota Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA)

7. The religious use of peyote is protected in the SDCL 34-20B-14(17), creating undue prejudice against religious use of cannabis which does not enjoy that same protection.

8. The South Dakota RFRA forbids the state from interfering with religious use of cannabis without a compelling interest and a least restrictive means of achieving it. Strict scrutiny required by the RFRA says if the religious core mandatory actions are more likely than not (or even equal like in UDV) to be consistent with public health and safety, then the First Amendment settles it.

 

O Centro (UDV) says that balance can be equal on both sides, and the First Amendment wins in the event of a tie. See also DEA’s Guidance Regarding Petitions for Religious Exemption(November 20, 2020

9. Organized crime is now protected in the South Dakota Medical Cannabis Act, SDCL 34-20G(2021). Cultivation of cannabis plants and distribution of cannabis extracts containing high concentrations of delta-9 THC are federal crimes.  Patients with severe medical conditions who participate in this scheme are denied assistance from federally funded services for engaging in a federal criminal act.  SDCL 34-20B-14(20) still classifies cannabis as unsafe for use under medical supervision.  The state’s preference for the unlawful and disorderly use of cannabis over religious use of cannabis is proof of extreme prejudice.

10. Retail sales of delta-9 THC, the psychoactive component in cannabis, to anyone over the age of 21, is now protected in SD Codified Law 38-35.  Religious use of cannabis does not enjoy that same level of protection, which is further proof of the extreme prejudice embedded in these statutes.

11. Three of these four statutes are recent, the Medical Cannabis Act in 2021, the Hemp Act in 2019, and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in 2021, highlighting how the government’s cannabis policy over the past 55 years has been a total disaster and the opportunity that was just created by the RFRA to redress this violation of fundamental human rights.

INTRODUCTION

12. Mr. Karimi is serving two years probation following the conviction of felon with a work tool (machete) while leaving a job site in Nebraska and pulled over in his work vehicle full of work tools, a sentence which included no restitution as the only victim in the case was Mr. Karimi.

13. Mr. Karimi, when initially placed on probation in October 2024, was advised by his probation officer during his first meeting that his South Dakota active and valid medical cannabis card he possessed at that time would not be approved by South Dakota probation due to Nebraska’s probation terms and directive. Mr. Karimi immediately replied he would therefore respectfully sue for religious discrimination under the South Dakota RFRA. Probation later reversed, requested my medical documentation, and advised the medical card would be approved after all after Mr. Karimi pointed out the new laws in Nebraska meant that probationers were allowed, widely reported by the media as common knowledge, to possess cannabis with proper medical documentation under the new Nebraska medical cannabis law effective December 12 2024.

14. Probation in South Dakota advised repeatedly and in writing that as long as Mr. Karimi’s religious cannabis use was not through criminal black market sources and was purchased at a dispensary or public market such as Rolling Smoke in Sioux Falls, then the concern while supervising Mr. Karimi on probation regarding the sacramental use of cannabis hemp sativa during prayer was not a priority. To this end urinary analysis was stopped, due to the perception that Nebraska was going to approve a medical cannabis exemption. After four months of this, guidance was changed to advising that Nebraska, ignoring the law in their own medical cannabis act saying medical cannabis authorized by a supervising doctor was exempt from controlled substance prohibitions in all Nebraska statutes, apparently chose to enforce line item 11 of Mr. Karimi’s probation order barring controlled substances from being used for Nebraska probationers. No legal opinion or reason as to why was provided and it appears this attempt at enforcement violates the Nebraska medical cannabis laws now on the books and Nebraska officials just don’t care to update or follow their new law. Nebraska changed their guidance in this case and the law plainly and explicitly states this application of probation restriction is illegal under Nebraska current law and is needing to be explained in court why Nebraska officials are attempting to proceed with applying the law this way when their only correspondence to Mr. Karimi advised they did not understand the new law and for answers see a judge.

15. Cannabis and peyote are both classified as hallucinogenic plants with high potential for abuse and lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision.  Religious use of peyote by the Native American Church has been protected by South Dakota law since 1970, and by federal law since 1966.

16. At the time Mr. Karimi was arrested, Nebraska failed to be one of the majority of states that excepted the use of cannabis for any reason, religious or otherwise.  Since that time, however, changes in state cannabis laws in Nebraska have been dramatic, with voters first approving medical cannabis via the ballot, and then afterwards, Nebraska lawmakers also excepting the medical use of cannabis in the 2025 legislative session from Schedule One controls, while also legislatively declining to ban hemp products and choosing to regulate hemp products instead, another secular, non-religious exception. There is nothing close to approximating a total ban on cannabis in Nebraska, and no compelling interest to ignore the new laws, as Nebraska probation is attempting to do.

17. Nebraska’s new medical cannabis law has plain language that when juxtaposed with Mr. Karimi’s Nebraska probation written terms clearly nullify the probationary restriction of no medical cannabis use for probationers, now being imposed impermissibly and without explanation as to what legal authority or justification there is for doing so, by Nebraska probation.

18. When asked in writing whether the new Nebraska medical cannabis legal state exceptions have overruled Nebraska officials from treating medical cannabis as a controlled substance, as plainly obvious when reading the new law, Nebraska probation’s correspondent Ashley, with her boss on the email, advised that Nebraska probation didn’t know what the new medical cannabis law meant, and Ashley advised in writing to file a lawsuit and see a judge. Ignorance of the Nebraska medical cannabis law by Nebraska probation has lead them to give unconstitutional guidance and directives to South Dakota probation, leading to this cause of action as respectfully promised October 2024 if probation in Nebraska didn’t do their basic due diligence and get a lawyer to consult and advise something other than “I don’t know the law go to court to find out,” due diligence of which would have avoided this lawsuit.

19. California enacted a compassionate use act for cannabis in 1996.  As of now, a total of 48 states have enacted state medical cannabis laws.

20. Federally, HHS ruled that cannabis has “accepted medical use in the United States” and issued a binding opinion on DEA that cannabis must be reassigned to Schedule 3, further evidence cannabis inclusion in Schedule One is inaccurate.

21. South Dakota enacted a medical cannabis act in 2021 and the legislature has not made any serious attempt to repeal.  The medical cannabis act does not change the statutory classification of cannabis in chapter 34-20B.  Both cannabis plants and cannabis extracts are schedule I controlled substances with a high potential for abuse and without any accepted safety for use under medical supervision, the same as peyote. Probationers supervised by South Dakota probation are allowed exceptions for the use of medical cannabis. See SDCL 34-20G-96 “Probationer or parolee use–Practitioner attestation”

22. Under the medical cannabis act, cultivation of cannabis and use of cannabis extracts are not medically supervised.  Cultivation, distribution, and possession of cannabis plants and extracts are federal crimes.  Medical professionals cannot facilitate the use of cannabis without risking the loss of license to practice medicine.  The omission of medical supervision is no accident.  Manufacturers, distributors, and patients, all willingly violate federal drug law to participate in Iowa’s program.  One could argue that patients are participating involuntarily, under duress. For probation to advise Mr. Karimi to not file for his religious civil rights to his sacrament, but to first instead take part in the medical cannabis federal racketeering scheme and become a federal criminal to comply with state law, is an insult as well as injury, since the state has remedies at their disposal to comply with federal law via 21 U.S.C. § 822(d), but chooses not to, while actively promoting probationers to take part for medical purposes instead of religious purposes, likely due to nobody else in the entire state of either South Dakota or Nebraska ever making this request before.

23. Under the medical cannabis act, medical professionals certify a patient has a qualifying medical condition.  The rest is up to the patient and a chain of activities that all violate federal drug law.  The state licenses federally illegal businesses involved in the chain.

24. Chapter 34-20B creates some restrictions on how cannabis can be used, but users have access to cannabis extracts of any delta-9 THC potency and use the extracts at their own discretion.  Manufactures can cultivate cannabis plants without any restriction on the amount of delta-9 THC the plants can contain.

25. The South Dakota Hemp Act, SDCL 38-35, authorizes delta-9 THC for retail sale.  The original limit of .3% delta-9 THC calculates to approximately 1,020 milligrams per 12-ounce beverage.  The hemp laws in South Dakota were amended by the legislature in 2024 to outlaw sales of the products but possession of the product remains legal and, hemp products are sold all over Sioux Falls and South Dakota as of June 2025 when this lawsuit was filed. Federal law still allows up to 1,020 mg in that same beverage.  Delta-9 THC is actively being sold in grocery stores to anyone above the age of 21.  There is no limit on the total amount of delta-9 THC that can be purchased in a single transaction by anyone over the age of 21.

26. Until recently, the state enjoyed sovereign immunity, and Mr. Karimi was blocked from filing a civil claim against the state for favoring religious freedom for a single religious organization in SDCL 34-20B-14(17).  The establishment of a single religion in chapter 34-20B-14(17) is unconstitutional.  SDCL 34-20G now provides virtually unlimited access to delta-9 THC.  SDCL 34-20G also makes cannabis seeds legal.

27. Sale of cannabis seeds, delta-9 THC, and federal racketeering schemes are all approved in these acts, but personal, private, not for profit, religious use of cannabis has not.

28. The State of South Dakota could have insisted the guidance they waited on from Nebraska probation be based on an updated interpretation of how the new medical cannabis laws in Nebraska, which went into effect in December 2024, changed whether probation could lawfully imprison a state exempted medical cannabis cardholder like Mr. Karimi, but they’d rather jail Mr. Karimi for two days without any legal clarification, justification, compelling interest, due process or civility. When Mr. Karimi asked for this legal interpretation to be resolved, Nebraska probation advised him to file to see a judge three hours from Mr. Karimi’s home for repeat trips back and forth, which is known to have a chilling effect on filing for religious protections and civil rights disputes, a strategy meant not towards promoting religious protections but discriminating against them. Nebraska is by al appearances openly ignoring their own laws to bully people they don’t like, while their Attorney General lies to the public, letting his biases and prejudices violate basic ethics of honesty, when he claims there is no path for federal approval of state authorized medical cannabis programs. Mr. Hilgers dishonesty is plain to see when one reads 21 USC § 822(d), which allows states to apply for federal exceptions to state medical programs. One state so far has repeatedly endorsed using 21 U.S.C. § 822(d) to protect their medical cannabis program, and that recommendation comes from the Iowa Medical Cannabidiol Advisory board, whose board members were appointed by Iowa lawmakers to review the relevant laws and make recommendations to the Iowa Legislature. Nebraska leaders, instead of following and advising the actual federal laws that allow for medical state programs to be approved, have chosen instead to waste court resources making arguments any first year law student would get failed for. Ignorance of the law is no excuse but willful ignorance and outright lies by state attorney generals, whether lies of omission by purposeful choice or, worse, genuine cluelessness as to the legal codes and statues, is an incompetence based travesty of the basic principles, defended by bloodshed, of our judicial system, and is a disgrace to not only the office of the Attorney General of Nebraska but to all lawyers keeping silent about the actual laws as written. If we can’t rely on Attorney Generals to tell the truth to the public and policy makers, misguiding them way off course, we are really in trouble. Such tactics by State Attorney General Hilgers is comparable to turning over the chess table after losing the match. Worse, it has lead probation in this case in Nebraska to advise they don’t understand the current status of the law due to AG Hilgers hostile stance and refusal to implement the new law in good faith while instead choosing to spread false information (fake news) to state officials and sabotage the rule of law. 21 U.S.C. § 822(d) clearly contemplates a federal official making a decision. If Nebraska officials hadn’t publicly made statements explicitly stating their intent to ignore other state’s, their laws, and their findings, Nebraska would have avoided these inexcusably inaccurate legal opinions they have publicly disseminated and instead recognized Iowa officials were actively pursuing a federal exemption as Congress wisely intended to be allowed. Instead we have the situation where the State is refusing to defend a law the state legislature has fully endorsed and instructed implementation to begin, leaving patients without the provided avenues of relief state officials should have been pursuing all along, rather than threatening to sue if legislative funds were dispersed to state regulatory efforts. This intentional sabotage of legislative directive may be justifiable under AG Hilgers purported legal guidance falsely claiming federal law doesn’t anticipate a federal official ruling on a state applicarion for exemption as required by 21 U.S.C § 822(d). Therefore, something is wrong, and the resulting incompetence and negligence of state officials has put them in a position where other understandably confused state officials — probation officers supervising Mr. Karimi — are advising his religious request for exemption that complies with state and federal law be watered down instead into a medical request for exemption with zero federal legality attached. If this action willfully persists it may approach violation of 18 U.S.C. § 242, which prohibits officials from intentionally depriving individuals of constitutional rights under color of law (Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91, 103-104 (1945).

When AGs don’t issue accurate guidance, and state officials advise federal criminality, in spite of existing remedies, Mr. Karimi is duty bound as a citizen to point this avoidable conflict out and demand a court order intervening with an injunction and declaration that cannabis hemp sativa sacrament, used in prayer, is a core requirement of Mr. Karimi’s church and is precluded from being interfered with under the first amendment.

29. The South Dakota Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) waives sovereign immunity and gives Mr. Karimi the right to ask the court to enjoin the state from interfering with the religious use of cannabis hemp sativa sacrament mandated by Mr. Karimi’s church.

30. Therefore, Mr. Karimi asks the court to enjoin the state from enforcing SDCL 34-20B and SDCL 34-20C against the personal, private, not for profit, religious use of cannabis.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

A.  Rastafari (2009)

31. In 2009, Mr. Karimi learned about a religious organization in Minnesota, the Minnesota House of Rastafari, and engaged in discussions over the Bible with a Rastafarian via email and phone for two years by the name of Jamison Arend.

32. In 2010, Mr. Karimi argued during a probation revocation hearing that his religious right to use cannabis was being unconstitutionally violated by the court in Warren County Iowa. Mr. Karimi demanded the court grant an exception to probation drug testing nd allow THC in urinary analysis to be accepted and allowed during probation. The front page news article covering the court happenings was the longest front page story in the history of the Indianola Record Herald.

33. Mr. Karimi was discharged early from probation in Warren County as a result of his refusal to stop using cannabis for Rastafarian prayer ceremonies. Mr. Karimi served 60 days contempt of court and was released from probation a year early.

34. While in jail for 60 days, Mr. Arend in Minnesota won the same argument Mr. Karimi risked his freedom for, and was allowed by the judge not to possess cannabis on probation, as that would at the time have been unlawful in Minnesota in 2010, but the judge did rule that THC testing in urinalysis for Mr. Arend was prohibited for the duration of Mr. Arend’s supervised release as THC in urine was religiously protected by the constitution from being a violation of Minnesota state probation in Ramsey County, Minnesota.

35. Mr. Arend, the main but not sole teacher and initiator to Rastafari for Mr. Karimi, was eventually featured on the front pages of City Pages Minneapolis for his efforts to take the state to court to win religious exemptions for Mr. Arend and his family members.

36. Mr. Karimi, starting in 2011, began to make weekly trips to sit down in person and discuss scripture with Mr. Arend in person.

37. In 2014, Mr. Karimi accompanied Mr. Arend and his eldest son, identified in court rulings as “J.J.M.A.,” to the Minneapolis police department. While charges were pending against J.J.M.A., a minor at the time, for possession of a cannabis chalice, the police returned the chalice from the evidence room, still in the labeled evidence bags, to Mr. Karimi, Mr. Arend and his son. Those pipes are now possessed and used by fellow members of the Lion of Judah House of Rastafari.

38. In 2018, a Rastafarian Mr. Karimi met through the Minnesota Rastafarian prayer meetings incorporated a Wisconsin church and invited Mr. Karimi to be a member. That church is called Lion of Judah, House of Rastafari and is based in Madison, Wisconsin, and Mr. Karimi remains a card carrying member in good standing as of today. See affidavit of Jesse Schworck.

39. In 2019, Mr. Karimi shared an apartment, and regular sacrament and prayer, for 18 months with Mr. Arend in Minneapolis before moving to Sioux Falls in November of 2020 and has resided in Sioux Falls since.

40. In 2015, Jamaica enacted an exception to its drug laws for the religious use of cannabis.  Dangerous Drugs (Amendment) Act, 2015, No. 5, March 20, 2015.

B.  Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse (1970)

41. In 1970, the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, Public Law 91-513, October 27, 1970, § 601(d)(1), 84 Stat. 1236, 1280-1281, authorized a Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, to “conduct a study of marihuana”.

42. In 1972, the Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse recommended cannabis be decriminalized for personal, private, not for profit, use.  marihuana: a signal of misunderstanding, First Report of the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse March 1972, pp. 152, 154.

D.  Drug Enforcement Administration (1986)

43. Cannabis scheduling proceedings were initiated by the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) in 1972.  51 Fed. Reg. 22946 (1986); NORML v. Ingersoll, 497 F.2d 654 (D.C. Cir. 1974); NORML v. DEA, 559 F.2d 735 (D.C. Cir. 1977), NORML v. DEA, et al., No. 79-1660, United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, unpublished order filed October 16, 1980 (remanding to DEA).

44. The result: DEA’s Administrative Law Judge’s Opinion and Recommended Ruling, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Decision of Administrative Law Judge (“Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man”).  DEA Docket No. 86-22 (September 6, 1988), pp. 58-59.

45. In 1989, the DEA Administrator rejected the recommendation of the Administrative Law Judge.  54 Fed. Reg. 53767 (1989).

Religious Freedom Restoration Act (1993)

46. In 1990, the U.S. Supreme Court held that state laws are immune from First Amendment challenges if those laws do not single out religious use of a controlled substance (state laws must be neutral) and there are no other exceptions (state laws must be generally applicable).  Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990).  This was an immensely unpopular decision.

47. In 1993, Congress reversed Smith by enacting the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), Pub. L. No. 103-141, 107 Stat. 1488 (November 16, 1993).

48. In 1997, the U.S. Supreme Court held that facially neutral and generally applicable state laws are immune from the RFRA, as well as from the First Amendment.  Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507, 511 (1997).  In response to the decision in Boerne, many states have enacted their own religious freedom restoration acts.

49. In 2021, South Dakota enacted a Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Like its federal counterpart, South Dakota’s RFRA requires the compelling interest test regardless of whether a law is neutral or generally applicable.  And, like its federal counterpart, South Dakota’s RFRA authorizes a claim against the government.

F.  State Medical Cannabis Programs (1996)

50. In 1996, states began enacting laws allowing cannabis as an alternative to conventional medical treatments.

51. In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a claim that Congress lacked authority under the Commerce Clause to regulate homegrown cannabis authorized by state law for medical use.  Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 27 n. 37 (2005) (“But the possibility that the drug may be reclassified in the future has no relevance to the question whether Congress now has the power to regulate its production and distribution.”)

52. However, the Supreme Court did not tell Raich that 21 USC § 822(d) allows federal exceptions to state medical programs.

53. Schedule one inclusion requires a finding of no accepted medical use in the United States as a matter of legal foreclosure from inappropriately scheduling substances. When Congress first wrote the CSA, they put a failsafe into Schedule One substance definitions that triggered nullification of previously existing schedule one substances once a state accepted that substance for medical use. Specifically, the court clarified this situation in Grinspoon v. DEA, 828 F.2d 881, 886 (1st Cir. 1987) (“Congress did not intend ‘accepted medical use in treatment in the United States’ to require a finding of recognized medical use in every state or, as the Administrator contends, approval for interstate marketing of the substance”)

54. No state has ever been challenged by the federal government to shut down their state program. The federal government hasn’t bothered bringing a suit because they know the case law. Nebraska is the only state in 30 years to foolishly attempt to argue in court that federal law precludes states from passing medical laws. The Supreme Court decision in Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243 (2006) (state authority to define assisted suicide as an accepted medical treatment) was thought to be the final word on that subject.

G. IM 26 SECL 34-20-G “Medical Cannabis”

55. South Dakota authorized and has not repealed the accepted medical use of cannabis in South Dakota, yet failed to update the state’s classification as cannabis having no accepted medical use in South Dakota. That is perfectly fine and consistent, as the medical cannabis program was passed and implemented as an exception to Schedule One. This is also consistent with another South Dakota exception for a schedule one substance, the religious peyote exception for native Americans. The medical cannabis act authorized violation of federal law and failed to direct the state to apply for federal approval under 21 U.S.C. § 822(d).

56. The 2021 act added the adjective “medical” to the word “cannabis” in the title of the act, to distinguish the act’s unique definition of “medical cannabis” from the scientifically accurate definition of “cannabis”.  But the term “medical” has long held a different meaning in state regulations (a prescription medication).  In 2005, the Iowa Supreme Court rejected a claim that cannabis grown for medical use was protected by medical necessity.  State v. Bonjour, 694 N.W.2d 511, 514 (Iowa 2005) (“procedure is to defer to the Board of Pharmacy”). (rejecting personal medical use outside the context of chapter 124).

57. The 2021 South Dakota act authorized cultivation of cannabis, distribution of cannabis extracts, and use of cannabis extracts by South Dakotans seeking an alternative to conventional medical treatments (pharmaceutical drugs).  Manufacturing, distributing, and possession of “medical cannabis” are all federal crimes.

58. In 2014, Congress began restricting the funding of the U.S. Department of Justice in its annual appropriations acts (none of the funds may be used to prevent states from implementing authorized use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana).  Public Law 118-42, § 531, 138 STAT. 25, 174 (March 9, 2024) Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024 (H.R. 4366); Public Law 117-328, § 531, 136 STAT. 4459, 4561 (December 29, 2022) Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 (H.R. 2617); Public Law 117-103, § 531, 136 STAT. 49, 150 (March 15, 2022) Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022 (H.R. 2471); Public Law 116-260, § 531, 134 Stat. 1182, 1283 (Dec. 27, 2020) Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (H.R. 133); Public Law 116-93, § 531, 133 Stat. 2317, 2431 (Dec. 20, 2019) Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020 (H.R. 1158); Public Law 116-6, § 537, 133 Stat. 13, 138 (Feb. 15, 2019) Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019 (H.J. Res. 31); Public Law 115-141, § 538, 132 Stat. 347, 444 (Mar. 23, 2018) Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 (H.R. 1625); Public Law 115-31, § 537, 131 Stat. 135, 228 (May 5, 2017) Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017 (H.R. 244); Public Law 114-113, § 542, 129 Stat. 2241, 2332 (Dec. 18, 2015) Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 (H.R. 2029); Public Law 113-235, § 538, 128 Stat. 2129, 2217 (Dec. 16, 2014) Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 (H.R. 83).

H. Iowa Medical Cannabidiol Act (2020)

59. In 2020, Iowa enacted the Medical Cannabidiol Act.  2020 Acts ch. 1116 (June 29, 2020).  The 2020 act directed the department of health to make a request for a federal waiver via 21 USC 822(d) for the Iowa state authorized federal racketeering scheme.  2020 Acts ch. 1116, § 31.

60. In September 2020, the Iowa department informed the Iowa medical camnabidiol board that the department would seek a federal exemption pursuant to 21 C.F.R. § 1307.03.  Medical Cannabidiol Program Update, September 4, 2020, Iowa Department of Public Health.

61. In April 2021, when no updates on the progress of the application for federal exemption had been provided to the board, the department reluctantly requested protection of federal funding threatened by the state federal racketeering scheme, after being sued for dragging its feet.  Olsen v. Reynolds, Iowa District Court, Polk County, No. CVCV061635, May 3, 2021.

62. The Iowa Medical Cannabidiol Board Meeting Minutes from 2022 November state: “Additionally, a motion was made to assemble a legal task force to assist the Department in requesting an exemption for IA’s program from necessary Federal agencies, which was approved unanimously.”

63. In December 2022, the board included the proposal, made by Iowans for Medical Marijuana founder Carl Olsen, in its Annual Report to the legislature for the 2023 session.

64. In December 2023, the board included Mr. Olsen’s proposal in its Annual Report to the legislature for the 2024 session.

65. December 2024, the board included Mr. Olsen’s proposal in its Annual Report to the legislature for the 2025 session.

I. Petition for Federal Exemption (2025)

66. Mr. Karimi is working on filing for religious exemption with the DEA pursuant to Guidance Regarding Petitions for Religious Exemption(November 20, 2020) created by the DEA in response to the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (2006).

67. In 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court applied the RFRA to the religious use of a controlled substance.  Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (2006).  “The well-established peyote exception also fatally undermines the Government’s broader contention that the Controlled Substances Act establishes a closed regulatory system that admits of no exceptions under RFRA.”  Id., at 434.  “We do not doubt that there may be instances in which a need for uniformity precludes the recognition of exceptions to generally applicable laws under RFRA.  But it would have been surprising to find that this was such a case, given the longstanding exemption from the Controlled Substances Act for religious use of peyote, and the fact that the very reason Congress enacted RFRA was to respond to a decision denying a claimed right to sacramental use of a controlled substance.  See 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb(a)(4).”  Id., at 436.

68. Compliance with state law is required for federal exemption and Mr. Karimi demands a religious exception from the state as is his right under the US Constitution first amendment, South Dakota Constitution first amendment and South Dakota RFRA. Nebraska also has an RFRA titled the First Freedom Act. Letters to Attorney General Hilgers by Mr. Karimi and his church are being sent. Letters have already been sent to other state attorney generals by Mr. Karimi and his church as well, but not yet to Attorney General Hilgers, due to time and priority constraints.

69. On Tuesday June 3rd, Mr. Karimi filed a written notice and request to Senator John Thune’s Sioux Falls staff while there to install a TV bracket in their Sioux Falls office for them, requesting any guidance and insights they may have in assisting Mr. Karimi’s in his efforts to pursue the same federal exemption Iowa is pursuing for South Dakotans. Mr. Karimi has previously testified about 21 U.S.C. § 822(d) to Sioux Falls City Council as well as the South Dakota Department of Health during their public hearings on medical cannabis in 2021 and 2022, where he objected to being told that medical users must consent to being federal outlaws when an existing process for exemption exists and Attorneys are telling the public these exemptions don’t exist. If these exemptions for state medical cannabis patients didn’t exist via 21 U.S.C. § 822(d) Iowa officials wouldn’t have requested their state file for exemption. It is reasonable to object to probation’s directive to become a consenting federal criminal when Mr. Karimi’s initial request was and remains to only use cannabis products that comply with state and federal law, which at the time of his use that lead to jail were hemp products legal under state and federal law. State medical cannabis products, sold at dispensaries, can be used by Mr. Karimi with a state card and federal exemption. A state card may somehow be a federal exemption, but nobody has filed to find out, nor argued that state card automatically exempt end users from federal law due to medical use exception, whether a state official or advocate, because nobody else in the entire state but Mr. Karimi has brought this issue up. Why this is Mr. Karimi has no idea, but it might be because nobody else in South Dakota uses hemp cannabis sativa as their sacrament and openly admits to it. Mr. Karimi wishes to comply with all laws, federal especially, and a religious exemption grants that. Mr. Karimi has standing to request a religious exemption but one man’s standing to request federal exemption under 21 U.S.C. § 822(d) is not as clear and is brought up by Mr. Karimi here to demonstrate the lack of compelling interest in enforcing federal law by state officials who cannot argue a compelling interest in overriding a limited private personal religious user an exception within the same limits for possession and use and safe access and simultaneously allow probationers exceptions with no complaint of any federal implications on those instances of medical users. Preserving for the record this situation clearly has been the utmost goal and doing so with thorough preparation before filing anything has been done with a genuine gratitude and respect that one man can file such complaints and find the process works when active citizens persist in engaging and don’t give up at the first few frustrations.

J. Recent Major Shifts in Compelling Interest (2024)

70. South Dakota and Nebraska lawmakers chose to allow possession of hemp products during the legislative 2025 session.

71. South Dakota and Nebraska lawmakers also chose to not repeal medical cannabis in the 2025 legislative session. Lawmaker Travis Ismay introduced a bill to repeal medical cannabis in South Dakota which failed to advance.

K. Federal Rescheduling (2024)

72. In 2024, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) proposed transferring marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III.  See Federal Register, Vol. 89, No. 99, Tuesday, May 21, 2024, p. 44597.  Schedule III drugs have a lower potential for abuse when compared to drugs in schedules I and II, have a Currently Accepted Medical Use, and their abuse may lead to moderate or low physical dependence or high psychological dependence.  21 U.S.C. § 812(b)(3).  If marijuana is transferred into schedule III, the manufacture, distribution, dispensing, and possession of marijuana would remain subject to the applicable criminal prohibitions of the CSA.

73. What this means is that even if cannabis is transferred into schedule III both federally and in South Dakota, the Medical Cannabidiol Act would remain inconsistent with federal drug law without an exception under 21 U.S.C. § 822(d). In Minnesota, where cannabis has already been transferred to Schedule III, Minnesota still hasn’t applied for exception under 21 USC § 822(d).

74. An exception under 21 U.S.C. § 822(d) must be consistent with “public health and safety”.  Because state programs like the South Dakota medical cannabis program are the sole reason the HHS and the DEA are recommending transfer of cannabis to Schedule III, it seems South Dakota has a strong case for federal exemption but lacks the moral integrity to put any muscle into it.

CONCLUSION

75. The 1972 commission report recommended cannabis be legal for personal use and the 1988 administrative law judge found cannabis to be one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man.  And, since that time, states have shown again and again that people with serious medical conditions can use cannabis safely without direct medical supervision.  Cannabis has become so widely accepted that it can no longer be considered to have a high potential for abuse.

76. All 48 states that have medical cannabis programs have criminal organizations cultivating and supplying cannabis products to patients with serious medical conditions, and now delta-9 THC is being sold in grocery stores for recreational use.

77. The state has no compelling interest in prohibiting personal, private, not for profit, religious use of cannabis. The prior jailing of two days for Mr. Karimi for using personal private limited amounts of his sacrament needs to be forbidden by state action moving forward. The fact that every other South Dakota probationer is presumed to be allowed to use medical cannabis products while on probation strongly if not definitively demolished any compelling interest claim by the State. Using the excuse that Nebraska’s inability to read their own laws, or to respect due process, is not a valid reason South Dakota can ignore Mr. Karimi’s valid religious exception promised by the first amendment and the RFRA, and replace it with an invalid medical exception instead. That scheme dreamed up by lawmakers is not constitutionally protected and can be revoked on a whim. See SDCL 34-20G-96    “Probationer or parolee use–Practitioner attestation.” When I asked to see a judge to discuss the much stronger constitutional religious exception legal rulings given to fellow members of my Rasta church, including my former roommate Mr. Arend, I was given legal advice to not file to see the judge and instead wait to on probation to advocate for me for a medical exemption. Well intended or not this was a mistake and inappropriate and bordered on legal malpractice by having a non-lawyer give me legal advice. If the intent was to protect Mr. Karimi, which it likely was, that hasn’t resulted in the protections via THC exceptions given other similarly situated probationers and mandated by legislative directive with no consideration for South Dakota’s law for other states overruling that supposedly statutorily protected right to access federally illegal non-prescription medicine. Out of an abundance of caution, Mr. Karimi decided to oblige and exhaust the probation office’s written and verbal guidance and pursue a medical exemption first, so Mr. Karimi did not unnecessarily waste the court’s time with this action. When a remedy like medical exemption is available courts do not entertain constitutional claims. Now that medical is being denied as an exemption, with no explanation legally as to why this is lawful (because it isn’t), Mr. Karimi seeks injunction immediately to prevent any further removal of his private property, ie, his body, into a jail, for religiously protected, private, non-profit, mandatory church instructed and taught prayer ceremony and ritual.

78. See also the Department of Justice memorandum issued on October 6, 2017, entitled “Federal Law Protections for Religious Liberty,” according to the Department of Justice and published in the Federal Register under the Federal Register reference 82 FR 49668, outlines 20 principles guiding federal agencies in upholding religious liberty protections. It directs agencies to reasonably accommodate religious observance and practice in various aspects of government, quoted in part:

“Religious liberty is a foundational principle of enduring importance in America, enshrined in our Constitution and other sources of federal law. As James Madison explained in his Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, the free exercise of religion “is in its nature an unalienable right” because the duty owed to one’s Creator “is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society.”^[1] Religious liberty is not merely a right to personal religious beliefs or even to worship in a sacred place. It also encompasses religious observance and practice. Except in the narrowest circumstances, no one should be forced to choose between living out his or her faith and complying with the law. Therefore, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, religious observance and practice should be reasonably accommodated in all government activity.”

79. Religion promotes stability, community, morality, accountability, charity, hard work, and pro-social works and behavior, all concurring goals of probation. Because the state authorizes religious use of a controlled substance, peyote, by statute in Chapter 34, and because the state authorizes secular use of cannabis by statute in Chapter 34 inconsistent with federal drug law, and because the state authorizes delta-9 THC by statute in Chapter 38, the lack of any statutory protection for religious use of cannabis causes significant injury to Mr. Karimi and can only be resolved by a court order enjoining the state from interfering with this constitutionally protected activity. If schedule one substance use exemptions are law for millions of native americans, by blood alone, if medical patients on probation in South Dakota are allowed cannabis exceptions while precisely similarly situated to Mr. Karimi, who also has a medical card, and if secular users are able to buy THC at grocery stores, then the court can NOT deny an individual adult’s sincere religious use cannabis exemption as a lower priority and less important than exempting THC from probation drug testing violations for medical users.