Peyote Way Church of God, Inc. v. Meese, CA-3-82-0778-T.

• Decision Date: 31 October 1988
• Docket Number: No. CA-3-82-0778-T.,CA-3-82-0778-T.
• Citation: 698 F. Supp. 1342
• Parties: PEYOTE WAY CHURCH OF GOD, INC., Plaintiff, v. Edwin MEESE III, Attorney General of the United States, Jim Mattox, Attorney General of the State of Texas, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas

698 F. Supp. 1342

PEYOTE WAY CHURCH OF GOD, INC., Plaintiff, v. Edwin MEESE III, Attorney General of the United States, Jim Mattox, Attorney General of the State of Texas, Defendants.

No. CA-3-82-0778-T.

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division.

October 31, 1988.

Raymond E. White, Mary L. O'Connor, Cooperating Attys., American Civil Liberties Union, Dallas Chapter, Dallas, Tex., for plaintiff.

John T. Bannon, Jr., U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., Paula Mastropieri-Billingsley, Asst. U.S. Atty., Dallas, Tex., for defendant Edwin Meese III, Atty. Gen. of the U.S.

Charles A. Palmer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Douglas M. Becker, Gray & Becker, Austin, Tex., for defendant Jim Mattox, Atty. Gen. for the State of Tex.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

MALONEY, District Judge.

This case was originally before Judge William M. Taylor, Jr., who granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants, upholding the constitutionality of both state and federal statutes which prohibit the use of peyote as a controlled substance, and make an exemption for the nondrug, religious use of peyote by members of the Native American Church. On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the case was remanded and assigned to this Court for a determination of whether the statutes making possession or distribution of peyote a criminal act denied to members of the Peyote Way Church of God the right to freely exercise their religion under the First Amendment. Peyote Way Church of God v. William F. Smith, et al., 742 F.2d 193 (5th Cir.1984). This case was tried before the Court on June 16, 1987, and concluded on October 1, 1987. Counsel for the parties were directed to submit post-trial briefs on or before October 23, 1987. The Court, having considered the testimony of all witnesses, the exhibits, briefing and arguments of counsel, makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Findings of Fact

The Court finds that it has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this lawsuit under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

1. Plaintiff Peyote Way Church of God, Inc. ("Peyote Way") was incorporated in 1979 in Arizona.¹ The principals of Peyote Way are Immanuel P. Trujillo ("Trujillo"), Ann Zapf ("Zapf") and Matthew Kent ("Kent"). Zapf and Trujillo have each served as Peyote Way's president, and Kent is a minister for Peyote Way. At the time of the trial of this cause, Trujillo, Zapf, and Kent were the only resident members of Peyote Way.²

2. Peyote Way seeks declaratory and injunctive relief on the following grounds:

a. that 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 844³, as applied to Peyote Way members, violate the free exercise clause of the First Amendment;

b. that 21 C.F.R. § 1307.31⁴ violates the equal protection clause of the Fifth Amendment and the establishment clause of the First Amendment, and that this section violates Peyote Way members' constitutional right to privacy;

c. that Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 4476-15, §§ 4.032, 4.042, and 4.053⁵ are unconstitutional as applied to the Church under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and Article I, § 6 of the Texas Constitution; and,

d. that Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 4476-15, § 4.11(a)⁶ is unconstitutional as applied to Peyote Way under 42 U.S. C. §§ 1981 and 1983, the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and Article I, § 3 of the Texas Constitution.

3. Peyote Way has approximately 150 non-resident members.

4. Trujillo, Kent, and Zapf use peyote as a sacrament, and consider it to be a deity. These three resident members use peyote in connection with their religion, and sincerely believe that the use of peyote for other than religious purposes is sacrilegious.

5. Trujillo was once a member of the Native American Church, who later left to become one of the founders of Peyote Way.

6. Peyote Way subscribes to many tenets similar to those of the Native American Church.

7. The Native American Church, under both the Texas and federal statutory schemes, enjoys an exemption for the non-drug, religious use of peyote from the laws which prohibit the possession and distribution of peyote.

8. Peyote may be sold legally in Texas only by authorized dealers who are licensed by the Texas Department of Public Safety ("DPS"). DPS records reflect that all of the current supply of peyote is necessary to supply the needs of the Native American Church.

Conclusions of Law

Peyote Way urges the Court to find that it should be allowed to enjoy the same exemption as that afforded the Native American Church for the religious use of peyote. Peyote Way contends that to find otherwise would deprive its members of their rights to free exercise of religion.

The Court is directed by United States v. Rush, 738 F.2d 497, at 513 (1st Cir.1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1004, 105 S.Ct. 1355, 84 L.Ed.2d 378 (1985), where the First Circuit held:

The peyote exemption is uniquely supported by the legislative history and congressional findings underlying the American Indian Religious Freedom Act, which declares a federal policy of `protecting and preserving for American Indians their inherent right of freedom to believe, express and exercise their traditional religions ..., including but not limited to access to sites, use and possession of sacred objects, and the freedom to worship through ceremonials and traditional rites.' 42 U.S.C. § 1996.

Congress saw fit, in its enactment of the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 to list peyote as a controlled substance, possession and distribution of which is unlawful.⁷ The exemption provided for nondrug, religious ceremonial use for the Native American Church is not included in the statute, but is the subject of a regulation, included in the Code of Federal Regulations. 21 C.F.R. § 1307.31.

The Court must determine whether Plaintiff's challenge of the federal and state statutes regarding possession and distribution of peyote survive the government's assertion that there is an overriding purpose for the proscription of peyote use, and that a free exercise of religious beliefs challenge is not enough to circumvent the exercise of legislative power to regulate behavior which may be harmful to individuals or the public at large.

There are many cases which hold that the constitutional protection afforded freedom of religious belief does not extend absolutely to religious conduct. United States v. Rush, 738 F.2d 497 (1st Cir.1984); Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 60 S.Ct. 900, 84 L.Ed. 1213 (1940).

In United States v. Rush, the First Circuit held that when a law is challenged as interfering with religious conduct, the constitutional inquiry must be based on three questions:

1. whether the challenged law interferes with free exercise of a religion;

2. whether the challenged law is essential to accomplish an overriding governmental objective; and

3. whether accommodating the religious practice would unduly interfere with fulfillment of the governmental interest.⁸

The Court finds the record to reflect that the first question may be affirmatively answered. That is, the resident members of Peyote Way are sincere in their beliefs and in their desire to practice a form of peyotism. They view the use of peyote as an integral part of their religious doctrine and practice of their faith. They believe that without the use of peyote, their religion would not have meaning.⁹

The Court further finds that the second inquiry may also be answered affirmatively. That is, the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 and the Texas statutes prohibiting the possession and distribution of peyote are essential to accomplish the governmental purpose of regulating the use of substances found to be harmful to the public at large. These statutes were enacted by Congress and the Texas legislature in an effort to regulate those items deemed to pose a threat to individual health and social welfare.

The Court further finds that the third inquiry may also be answered affirmatively. That is, accommodating Peyote Way's religious practices would unduly interfere with the fulfillment of the federal and state governments' overriding concern for the protection of the public welfare. The parties are not in dispute that peyote is a psychotropic drug. Such drugs have long been the subject of legislative action. Both federal and state legislative bodies have concluded that it is in the interest of the public to control and regulate such drugs. This Court cannot invade the legislative province to so act. This Court's inquiry must be limited to determining whether the legislative acts prohibiting the possession and distribution of peyote are constitutional as applied to Peyote Way.

The Native American Church Exemption

The Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. § 812, was enacted in 1970. The exemption for the religious use of peyote by the Native American Church was created by regulation. 21 C.F.R. § 1307.31. When the Act was presented for amendment, there was discussion held on whether any amendment would affect the exemption held by the Native American Church.¹⁰ Congress, in amending the Act, did not see fit to alter the exemption in any way.

The Court finds that the exemption for the religious use of peyote by the Native American Church found in 21 C.F.R. § 1307.31 is in effect a grandfather clause.¹¹ The Court finds that Congress had before it all information necessary to make the initial determination to "grandfather" the religious use of peyote by the Native American Church as an exemption to the Controlled Substances Act. In subsequent sessions which considered amendment of the Controlled Substances Act, Congress saw fit to leave the exemption as written, without qualification as to whether churches, other than the Native American Church, which regard the use of peyote as integral to their religious practice are to be afforded the same exemption.

There is no doubt in the Court's mind that Co...