The RFRA Trap: Litigation Sequencing and the Structural Limits of State Religious Freedom Claims in Drug Law
Why arguing state RFRA before federal constitutional claims can foreclose Supreme Court review — and how litigation order determines survival.
By Jason Karimi | WeedPress
February 15, 2026
State Religious Freedom Restoration Acts are often treated as constitutional shields.
They are not.
They are statutory overlays enacted after the U.S. Supreme Court decided City of Boerne v. Flores, which held that the federal RFRA could not be applied to the states. In response, states adopted their own versions, restoring a strict scrutiny standard as a matter of state law.
That legislative response created a structural paradox.
State RFRAs can provide relief. They can restrain state actors. They can even halt prosecutions. But they do not alter federal constitutional doctrine. They do not revise the Free Exercise framework announced in Employment Division v. Smith. And they do not bind the U.S. Supreme Court.
This distinction matters because litigation is hierarchical.
If a case is resolved on state statutory grounds, the federal constitutional question may never mature. The Supreme Court reviews federal questions. It does not grant certiorari to refine state statutes.
When litigants lead with state RFRA, they may win the immediate dispute while structurally narrowing the appellate pathway.
That is the trap.
State RFRAs impose a statutory strict scrutiny standard as a matter of state law. Federal courts may apply that statute in appropriate jurisdictional postures, but it does not transform the Free Exercise Clause itself. A state RFRA ruling does not alter federal constitutional doctrine, nor does it bind the U.S. Supreme Court’s interpretation of the First Amendment.
The pending appeal in Jensen v. Utah illustrates the structural tension.
Here’s the PACER downloaded Appellant brief filed December 10th in the Jensen case:
Based on the appellant brief filed December 10, 2025, in the Tenth Circuit (Case No. 25-4115), the defendants (Utah County, Provo City, and Jeffrey Gray) are appealing a district court order that denied their motion to dismiss and granted an anti-suit injunction halting a parallel state criminal prosecution against Bridger Lee Jensen. The underlying dispute centers on Singularism, a religious organization founded by Jensen in 2023, which incorporates psilocybin as a central sacrament for spiritual practices. Psilocybin remains a Schedule I controlled substance under both federal (21 U.S.C. § 812) and Utah law (Utah Code Ann. § 58-37-4), but plaintiffs assert exemptions under the federal Free Exercise Clause, the Utah Constitution, and Utah’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act (URFRA, Utah Code Ann. § 63G-33-201 et seq.), enacted in 2024.
Key Elements from the Appellant Brief
The brief structures its arguments in a descending hierarchy of authority, starting with federal constitutional claims and descending to state-law issues—a sequencing arguably preserving the federal question for appellate escalation:
• Federal Free Exercise Claim (pp. 26-34): Appellants argue that Utah’s Controlled Substances Act is a neutral, generally applicable law under Smith, subject only to rational basis review, which it easily survives given the state’s interest in public health and safety. They contend no exemptions (e.g., for medical or research use) render it non-general, distinguishing it from cases like Fulton v. City of Philadelphia where individualized exceptions triggered strict scrutiny. If upheld, this would reinforce Smith‘s framework without needing to invoke URFRA’s stricter standard.
• Federal Fourth Amendment Claim (p. 34): Appellants assert the search warrant was validly issued based on probable cause, defeating any unlawful search claim as a matter of law.
• State-Law Claims (pp. 35-37): Here, appellants urge remand to Utah state court rather than federal adjudication, emphasizing comity and avoidance of unnecessary federal entanglement with state statutes like URFRA. This placement subordinates state RFRA to federal issues, avoiding the trap WeedPress describes by not letting statutory claims eclipse constitutional ones.
• Anti-Suit Injunction (pp. 37-60): Appellants challenge the district court’s application of Younger abstention, arguing the injunction improperly interferes with ongoing state criminal proceedings. They claim no bad faith or irreparable harm justifies the exception, and that defendants did not waive Youngerarguments.
The brief’s attachments reveal how the district court (Judge Jill N. Parrish) leaned on URFRA in earlier rulings. For instance:
• The December 18, 2024, TRO (Attachment C) granted relief based on URFRA’s substantial burden test, finding psilocybin essential to Singularism’s sincere practices.
• The February 20, 2025, preliminary injunction (Attachment B) explicitly resolved on URFRA grounds, deferring full analysis of constitutional claims pending the Utah Attorney General’s response.
• The August 4, 2025, order denying dismissal (Attachment A) addressed federal Free Exercise but noted its strict scrutiny analysis mirrored URFRA’s, potentially blending the standards in a way that risks diluting the pure federal question.
This reliance on URFRA in the lower court exemplifies WeedPress’s observed “trap”: by granting relief under the state statute, the district court provided localized protection but may have reduced the urgency or purity of the federal constitutional challenge, complicating certiorari if the case escalates. Appellants’ brief counters this by prioritizing federal arguments, aiming to force a Smith-centered review.
Current Status of the Appeal
As of mid-February 2026, the appeal remains pending in the 10th Circuit. Oral argument was requested in the December 2025 brief, but no date has been set. The district court granted a stay of proceedings on October 7, 2025, pending resolution. Recent commentary highlights the case’s novelty, including the court’s use of the United States v. Meyers five-factor test to evaluate Singularism’s religious sincerity. No dispositive ruling has issued, but appellants continue to press for reversal of the anti-suit injunction, arguing it was erroneously based on bad faith findings.
This sequencing matters for broader doctrinal shifts, especially post-rescheduling dynamics where medical exceptions could further erode Smith’s application to Schedule I substances. If the Tenth Circuit affirms on URFRA grounds without squarely addressing federal issues, it could exemplify the insulation WeedPress is warning about—winning the case but limiting precedent for national reform.
Seventeen years of studying cannabis law — federal scheduling mechanics, preemption doctrine, administrative procedure, religious exemption litigation — leads to a structural conclusion:
Power in cannabis reform has shifted.
It no longer turns primarily on legislative persuasion. It turns on litigation posture.
Doctrinal change does not emerge from slogans, press releases, or temporary statutory relief. It emerges from preserved federal questions, properly sequenced claims, and appellate architecture designed to survive review.
State RFRAs may provide localized relief. They may protect individual litigants. But they do not, standing alone, move First Amendment doctrine.
If the objective is constitutional transformation, the federal question must be preserved from the first filing through final appeal. Claims must be structured upward, not sideways. Relief grounded solely in state statute may resolve a dispute while insulating the underlying federal rule from review.
Litigation sequencing determines whether doctrine evolves or remains intact.
The WeedPress Policy Series exists to map that structure: the Controlled Substances Act, administrative record vulnerabilities, preemption triggers, horizontal federalism pressures, and the procedural mechanics that determine which cases reach the Supreme Court — and which never do.
This is not activism. It is structural analysis.
Courts change slowly. Doctrine shifts incrementally. But preserved federal questions are the only mechanism by which entrenched frameworks are tested.
Whether religious cannabis exemptions ultimately succeed is a secondary question.
The primary question is architectural:
Was the constitutional pathway preserved?
WeedPress will continue to examine that pathway.
This publication is educational analysis, not legal advice. Consult licensed counsel before adopting any litigation strategy.
Six installments of the WeedPress Policy Series are live. The remainder are written and undergoing citation verification before publication.
This project is not activism. It is structural analysis.
Whether or not courts ultimately recognize a religious cannabis exemption, the constitutional process must be tested carefully, methodically, and in the proper order. Case law develops slowly. Appellate doctrine evolves over decades, not headlines.
WeedPress will continue to study and publish at the intersection of religious liberty and federal drug law.
Weedpress Policy Series:
No. 1 — Legal Memorandum: Common Misconceptions in Cannabis Activism Regarding Federal Drug Law (January 25, 2026)
No. 2 — The Path to a Religious Cannabis Exemption: How Medical Cannabis Systems Change the RFRA Equation (January 27, 2026)
No. 3 — Structural Contradictions and Prospective Litigation Risk in Post-Rescheduling Cannabis Policy (February 6, 2026)
No. 4 — The Controlled Substances Act Is Not a Blunt Instrument — It Is an Architecture of Exceptions (February 13, 2026)
No. 5 — The Limits of § 822(d): What It Does — and Does Not — Authorize (February 13, 2026)
No. 6 — The Major Questions Doctrine and Cannabis Reform: Delegation, Scale, and Judicial Review (February 14, 2026)
No. 7 — Chevron’s Collapse and Cannabis Regulation: Judicial Review After Loper Bright (February 17, 2026)
No. 8 — Administrative Procedure Act Vulnerabilities in DEA Rescheduling (February 20, 2026)
No. 9 – No. 9 — Dormant Commerce Clause, Circuit Splits, and Cannabis Federalism (February 23, 2026)
No. 10 — Federal Preemption After Rescheduling: Conflict, Obstacle, and Cannabis Federalism (February 27, 2026)
No. 11 — Equal Protection and Economic Protectionism in Cannabis Licensing: Classification, Remedial Design, and Constitutional Limits (March 3, 2026)
No. 12 — Federal Rescheduling as a Preemption Trigger: Rational Basis, Conflict, and State Schedule I Exposure (March 6, 2026).
No. 13 — Criminal Prosecution After Federal Medical Recognition: Motions Practice, Rational Basis, and Schedule I Litigation Exposure (March 10, 2026).
Jason Karimi, Cannabis Federalism After Medical Recognition: Administrative Record, Rational Basis, and Vertical Separation of Powers, WeedPress White Paper No. 1 (Mar. 17, 2026).
Coming summer 2026 on Amazon is this book as well:
WeedPress: The Paper Trail 
Leave a comment