On October 5, 2026, a Tenth Circuit panel in Jensen v. Utah County, No. 25-4115 (Bacharach, with Ebel and Federico) reversed a federal judge's orders blocking Utah's prosecution of Bridger Lee Jensen, founder of the Provo psilocybin church Singularism. The panel held Younger abstention was not waived, that a chilling effect on religious practice "should not by itself justify federal intervention," and that Utah's narrow hospital psilocybin exemption (Utah Code § 58-37-309) is not a secular comparator that strips the state drug law of general applicability — because "risks differ for secular and religious uses." That leaves Employment Division v. Smith rational-basis review, which the plaintiffs conceded would be satisfied. But the February 2025 Utah RFRA preliminary injunction from Judge Jill N. Parrish was never appealed, and the panel "express[es] no opinion on [its] validity" — so it remains in force. Singularism petitioned for rehearing en banc on October 15, 2026, pointing at the pending Supreme Court general-applicability case St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy (argued November 3, 2026). None of this makes psilocybin legal for anyone else, anywhere: it is still Schedule I by name under 21 U.S.C. § 812, and the DEA had granted zero psilocybin religious exemptions as of GAO's 2024 audit.
The short answer
It is a genuinely important case on one narrow doctrinal question in one circuit — and the hook video is the church's own press conference, not independent analysis. The October 5 ruling is worse for the church's federal theory and less fatal to the church itself than either framing suggests.
The video is a Psychedelics Today livestream, streamed October 21, 2026, titled "Is this the most important psychedelic religious freedom case this century?" It is Singularism's press conference on its en banc petition, featuring founder Bridger Lee Jensen and lead counsel Tanner J. Bean. When we checked it, it had 198 views and no comments.
That is worth stating plainly: this is a party-run event about a case that party just lost. The church's own October 19 press release (https://singularism.org/press-conference_001) quotes Bean calling the decision an "existential crisis" and argues the panel announced a test "no entheogenic religious group could meet." That is advocacy. It may also be right. You cannot tell from the livestream.
So we read the opinion instead. *Jensen v. Utah County*, No. 25-4115 (10th Cir. Oct. 5, 2026), written by Judge Bacharach with Judges Ebel and Federico: https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/jensen-v-utah-10th-circuit-ruling-100526.pdf
Its opening line frames the whole fight: "This appeal involves the intersection between the exercise of religion and a state's authority to criminalize drug use."
Here is the three-sentence version. The panel reversed the federal orders that had shielded Jensen from state prosecution and had kept his Free Exercise claim alive on a "preferential treatment for secular use" theory. It did not touch the separate state-law injunction that is actually protecting the church's practice, because nobody appealed it. And none of it changes anything about psilocybin's status for you.
What the panel actually held
Three things: Utah did not waive Younger abstention by removing the civil case, a chilling effect on religion is not by itself irreparable injury justifying federal intervention, and Utah's hospital psilocybin exemption does not make the state drug law non-generally-applicable.
On abstention. Judge Jill N. Parrish had found in August 2025 that Utah waived *Younger* abstention by removing the civil case to federal court, writing that she "will not allow the shield of the Younger doctrine to be used as a gamesmanship sword" (https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.utd.152420/gov.uscourts.utd.152420.102.0_1.pdf). The panel disagreed. Removing the civil case did not waive abstention as to the *separate criminal case*, because the state court could not have enjoined the criminal proceedings either. It found no waiver from the state's silence — the state was under a federal order not to prosecute, so "the state authorities had no choice."
It also rejected the bad-faith and harassment exception. Parrish had noted the prosecution was filed five days after her RFRA ruling and found the state "pursued the prosecution primarily to harass Plaintiffs into ceasing their sincere religious practices." The panel's answer: the prosecution was not frivolous, because Jensen "had admittedly distributed a controlled substance."
On irreparable injury. Jensen can raise his constitutional claims in state court and on appeal. A chilling effect on religious practice, the panel said, "should not by itself justify federal intervention."
On general applicability. This is the holding with reach beyond Utah. Under *Employment Division v. Smith*, a neutral and generally applicable law gets rational-basis review — which the plaintiffs conceded Utah's drug law would survive. So everything turned on whether Utah's hospital psilocybin program is a secular comparator that breaks general applicability. The panel said no, comparing the "structure and implementation" of the two uses: hospital use runs under "direct supervision and control" with reporting requirements and pharmaceutical and psychiatric regulation; religious use has no comparable safeguards. It declined to credit Singularism's voluntary safeguards, and noted the church's own materials told users to seek licensed medical advice. The key line: "Because risks differ for secular and religious uses, the district court shouldn't have equated these risks."
It also read *Tandon v. Newsom*'s "same precautions" language narrowly — as a tailoring question that only arises *after* a law is found not generally applicable.
The panel left two things undecided. It dismissed the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction on the individualized-exemptions theory and the Fourth Amendment claim, remanding the first for the district court to decide. On the merits preview, it said Utah Code § 58-37-105(2)(d) — exemptions "consistent with public health and safety" — looks like a restricted criterion rather than an open-ended subjective system, so the argument was not "indisputably correct." That fight is still live.
The injunction nobody appealed
Judge Parrish's February 2025 preliminary injunction rested solely on the Utah RFRA, Utah Code § 63G-33-201. Utah County and Provo never appealed it, and the panel "express[es] no opinion on the validity of the preliminary injunction." It remains in force.
The most under-reported sentence in this story is in a footnote. The February 20, 2025 order was granted *only* on the Utah RFRA claim, with the constitutional claims reserved because the Utah Attorney General had not yet responded (https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-dis-crt-d-uta/116998560.html; order PDF at https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.utd.152420/gov.uscourts.utd.152420.92.0_1.pdf). It ordered seized items returned within 14 days and barred interference with sincere religious psilocybin use — while expressly declining to enjoin the prosecution. The appeal that produced the October 5 ruling did not challenge it.
That order is also where the sincerity findings live, and they survive the panel loss untouched. The court found Singularism's beliefs sincere under the *Meyers* factors, noted Utah DOPL and Provo City had already treated it as a religious entity, and rejected insincerity arguments based on scientific framing, Jensen's past drug use, and a $1,600-per-ceremony fee — describing the group as a legitimate religion rather than "a drug-dealing business cloaked in a minister's robe." The Tenth Circuit never reached sincerity. Do not read the appellate loss as a ruling that the church is fake.
Utah's RFRA is itself new: enacted as SB 150 (2024), sponsored by Sen. Todd Weiler and Rep. Jordan Teuscher, effective July 1, 2025 (https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title63G/Chapter33/C63G-33-S201_2025070120250507.pdf). It bars substantial burdens on free exercise absent a compelling interest pursued by the least restrictive means, can be raised as a claim or a defense, and awards fees to prevailing plaintiffs. Weiler described it as a backstop in case Congress repealed the federal RFRA; the ACLU of Utah opposed it. Jensen's case is the first to apply it.
Which is why the church's press release emphasizes that the panel's reasoning is "especially harmful in states without a RFRA." In Utah, Jensen still has a statute. Elsewhere in the Tenth Circuit, a group in his position might have only the federal theory the panel just narrowed.
The state's record, and what we cannot confirm
Utah County and Provo's December 10, 2025 brief alleges unlicensed facilitators, non-uniform dosing, no contaminant testing, and one participant removed by ambulance. Those are allegations, not findings — and several key facts about the program at the center of the ruling are unverified.
The appellants' opening brief (https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/jensen-v-utah-appeal-opening-brief.pdf) is where the safety record lives. Its allegations: ceremony packages roughly $3,900–$6,400 and facilitator training about $5,700; Jensen charged for psilocybin administration before forming the religion; unlicensed facilitators; dosing non-uniform at 2 to 3.5 grams; no contaminant testing; liability waivers; one participant removed by ambulance after an adverse reaction. Over 450 grams of psilocybin were seized in the November 2024 raid — described in the brief as more than 100 doses — plus two ounces of THC. On sincerity, the brief does not directly dispute Jensen's belief; it emphasizes that he described the religion as built to fit legal precedent and withheld most tenets from members until litigation.
These are the state's characterizations in an adversarial filing. They are also exactly the material the panel was looking at when it said religious use lacked "comparable safeguards." Note the fee discrepancy: the district court's February 2025 order discusses $1,600 per ceremony, the brief says $3,900–$6,400. We could not reconcile those figures, so we attribute each to its filing rather than picking one.
Three things we deliberately are not telling you, because we could not verify them:
- Whether the Tenth Circuit has acted on the en banc petition. Singularism filed it October 15, 2026, per its own press release, and asked the full court to reconsider or to hold the case. We could not reach the court's docket. Treat the status as unknown.
- Whether prosecution has actually resumed. The filings reference *State v. Jensen*, No. 241404407 (Utah Fourth Judicial District), including an order of dismissal that appears to have issued while the federal injunction was in force. Nothing we read says whether it was with or without prejudice, or what has happened since October 5. The ruling clears the way for prosecution; that is not the same as prosecution happening. The THC charges were never enjoined at all — Parrish's August 2025 injunction covered only the psilocybin counts and "does not disturb the prosecution insofar as it concerns THC."
- Whether Utah's hospital psilocybin program is operating. Utah Code § 58-37-309 (cited as § 58-37-3.5 in the 2025 district court order, renumbered since) limits the exemption to psilocybin or MDMA in FDA Phase 3 testing, used only under the "direct supervision and control" of a qualifying nonprofit system operating at least 15 licensed hospitals in the state or affiliated with a listed university, no patients under 18, with a report due to the Health and Human Services Interim Committee before July 1, 2026 and a sunset mechanism in 2027: https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title58/Chapter37/58-37-S309.html
We could not find that report, enrollment figures, or confirmation that any patient has been treated. That gap matters, because the panel's entire comparator holding rests on how the program works in "structure and implementation."
The federal backdrop: why this is not O Centro
Gonzales v. O Centro (2006) was a federal RFRA case about ayahuasca. Jensen's federal claim was a constitutional Free Exercise claim against a state. And the DEA's own religious exemption pathway has granted essentially nothing.
In 2006 the Supreme Court decided *Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal*, No. 04-1084, 8–0, Chief Justice Roberts writing (Alito not participating), affirming a preliminary injunction for sacramental hoasca use and rejecting the government's categorical claim that the Controlled Substances Act admits no RFRA exceptions: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-1084.ZS.html
That case ran on the *federal* RFRA against the *federal* government. Jensen's appealed theory was a First Amendment claim against Utah County and Provo, where *Smith* governs — a different doctrinal road entirely. His RFRA-shaped claim is the state one, and that is the one still standing.
Meanwhile, the administrative route is close to a dead end. GAO-24-106630, published May 30, 2024, found that from FY2016 through January 2024, 24 petitioners sought a DEA religious exemption and none was granted. Of six psilocybin petitions, three were withdrawn and three were pending, from about eight months to over three years; other petitions had sat for almost five and almost eight years. GAO made four recommendations, DEA concurred with all four, and all four remain open. DEA sent a draft Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to the Office of Legal Policy on January 12, 2026; it came back with comments February 13, 2026. https://gao.gov/products/gao-24-106630
The pathway itself dates to 2009 and requires petitioners not to engage in the prohibited activity until a petition is granted and a DEA registration issues. The one reported grant is Church of Gaia in Spokane, which announced in May 2025 that the DEA had approved its petition — for ayahuasca only (https://www.churchgaia.org/about-us/legal-information). The letter has not been published and the agreement may be confidential, so nobody outside knows its conditions.
The doctrinal question the panel decided is also about to get touched by the Supreme Court. *St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy*, No. 25-581, was granted certiorari April 20, 2026 limited to Questions 1 and 2, and argued November 3, 2026; it squarely concerns what "general applicability" means: https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25-581.html
That is why Singularism's petition asks the Tenth Circuit to hold the case. It is a reasonable ask. It is not a prediction.
What this means for you, which is less than the headline implies
Nothing in this ruling or the surviving injunction legalizes psilocybin for anyone outside its terms. Psilocybin is Schedule I by name under federal law, and a church membership card is not a legal defense.
Psilocybin and psilocyn are listed by name in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. § 812(c), Schedule I(c), items (15) and (16): https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/812 There is no federal legality here, and no court in this case has said otherwise.
What exists is narrow and specific: a Utah RFRA preliminary injunction protecting sincere religious psilocybin use in this record, and a hospital exemption limited to Phase 3 investigational material under direct institutional supervision. Neither is a license for a third party. For where regulated access actually exists, see /legal-status, /legal-status/oregon and /legal-status/colorado; for how the church landscape is organized, /psychedelic-churches and /psychedelic-churches/map. We have written separately on how these two models collide: /blog/legal-updates/psilocybin-religious-exemption-vs-state-programs
And the safety point the panel leaned on is real regardless of who wins. Unlicensed facilitators, untested material, and non-uniform dosing are the specific features that make a court skeptical — and they are the same features that hurt people. Nothing in a ceremony setting screens for the things a trial protocol screens for.
For the medication issues, labeled by evidence tier:
- Human RCT (SSRIs). Becker et al., *Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics* 2022;111(4):886–895, randomized 27 healthy volunteers (23 completers) to 14 days of escitalopram or placebo before 25 mg psilocybin. Escitalopram did not reduce overall subjective intensity and did not alter psilocin pharmacokinetics, but reduced anxious ego-dissolution, anxiety, bad drug effects and peak blood pressure. The authors' own caveats: one SSRI only, a possibly too-short 14-day pretreatment, healthy volunteers rather than patients, no correction for multiple comparisons. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9299061 More at /guides/psilocybin-and-ssris and /guides/microdosing-on-ssris
- Anecdote tier (lithium) — do not inflate. Nayak et al., *Pharmacopsychiatry* 2021;54(5):240–245, analyzed self-selected online reports from Erowid, Shroomery and Reddit. Of 62 lithium-plus-psychedelic reports, 47% involved seizures and 39% involved medical attention, versus zero of 34 lamotrigine reports. The authors offer only a provisional conclusion that psychedelic use "may pose a significant seizure risk" on lithium and call for more research. This cannot establish causation or population rates. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34348413/ See /guides/psilocybin-and-lithium
- Protocol tier (exclusions). University of Washington Phase 3 trial NCT05163496 excludes personal or immediate-family history of schizophrenia, bipolar affective disorder, delusional, paranoid or schizoaffective disorder; C-SSRS suicidal ideation above 3; history of seizure or chronic/severe headaches; neuroleptic and SSRI medications that cannot be tapered; and tramadol, for serotonin syndrome risk. Inclusion requires being off SSRIs for at least five half-lives plus two weeks. https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05163496
MAOIs: we did not verify a primary interaction source this session, so we are not making an evidentiary claim. Read /guides/psilocybin-and-maois and /guides/psilocybin-drug-interactions, and talk to a clinician.
PsyBear takeaways
Important case, overstated framing, and a surviving state-law injunction that most coverage missed. Read the opinion, not the press conference.
1. The hook is a party's press conference. 198 views, zero comments, the church's own counsel and founder. Useful as a signal of what Singularism's legal strategy is. Not evidence about the case.
2. The federal theory took a real hit. The panel read *Smith* broadly, read *Tandon* narrowly, declined to credit a church's voluntary safeguards, and held that a chilling effect on religious practice "should not by itself justify federal intervention." If that reasoning stands, the comparator argument gets much harder across the Tenth Circuit.
3. But the church's protection is state-law protection, and it was never appealed. The February 2025 Utah RFRA injunction stands, with the panel expressly declining to opine on it. Coverage that reads October 5 as the end of Singularism is reading past a footnote.
4. The sincerity findings are intact. They are Judge Parrish's, under Utah RFRA and the *Meyers* factors. The appellate panel never reached the question.
5. Three things are genuinely unknown. Whether rehearing has been acted on, whether prosecution has resumed, and whether Utah's hospital program has treated a single patient. The last one undercuts the comparator holding if the answer is no, and nobody has published it.
6. Watch *St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy*. Argued November 3, 2026, on what general applicability means. It is the reason the en banc petition exists.
7. None of this is access. Psilocybin is Schedule I by name federally. The DEA had granted zero psilocybin religious exemptions as of GAO's 2024 audit, and its pathway tells petitioners to stop first and ask permission. Do not treat a church affiliation as cover, and do not buy from unlicensed sellers.
This is legal and policy commentary, not legal or medical advice, and not a suggestion that any religious framing makes psilocybin lawful where you are. Screen for contraindications, flag SSRIs, lithium, MAOIs and other medications with a clinician, and start at /guides/safe-trip and /dosage.
Key Takeaways
On October 5, 2026, a Tenth Circuit panel in Jensen v. Utah County, No. 25-4115 (Bacharach, with Ebel and Federico) reversed a federal judge's orders blocking Utah's prosecution of Bridger Lee Jensen, founder of the Provo psilocybin church Singularism. The panel held Younger abstention was not waived, that a chilling effect on religious practice "should not by itself justify federal intervention," and that Utah's narrow hospital psilocybin exemption (Utah Code § 58-37-309) is not a secular comparator that strips the state drug law of general applicability — because "risks differ for secular and religious uses." That leaves Employment Division v. Smith rational-basis review, which the plaintiffs conceded would be satisfied. But the February 2025 Utah RFRA preliminary injunction from Judge Jill N. Parrish was never appealed, and the panel "express[es] no opinion on [its] validity" — so it remains in force. Singularism petitioned for rehearing en banc on October 15, 2026, pointing at the pending Supreme Court general-applicability case St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy (argued November 3, 2026). None of this makes psilocybin legal for anyone else, anywhere: it is still Schedule I by name under 21 U.S.C. § 812, and the DEA had granted zero psilocybin religious exemptions as of GAO's 2024 audit.
FAQ
- What did the Tenth Circuit decide in Jensen v. Utah County?
- On October 5, 2026, in No. 25-4115, a panel (Judge Bacharach writing, with Judges Ebel and Federico) reversed and remanded with instructions to vacate the injunction against Utah's criminal proceedings and the denial of the motion to dismiss the First Amendment claim on the "preferential treatment for secular use" theory. It held Younger abstention was not waived, that a chilling effect on religious practice "should not by itself justify federal intervention," and that Utah's hospital psilocybin exemption does not strip the state drug law of general applicability. It dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction on the individualized-exemptions theory and the Fourth Amendment claim.
- Is Singularism's church still protected after the ruling?
- In part. Judge Jill N. Parrish's February 20, 2025 preliminary injunction, granted solely on the Utah RFRA claim, was never appealed, and the panel said in a footnote that it "express[es] no opinion on the validity of the preliminary injunction." It therefore remains in force. The panel did vacate the separate order shielding Jensen from state prosecution.
- Did the court rule that Singularism is not a sincere religion?
- No. The Tenth Circuit never reached sincerity. The sincerity findings in this record are the district court's from February 2025, under Utah RFRA and the Meyers factors; that court found the beliefs sincere, noted Utah DOPL and Provo City had already treated Singularism as a religious entity, and rejected insincerity arguments based on scientific framing, Jensen's past drug use, and a $1,600-per-ceremony fee.
- Why did Utah's hospital psilocybin program not count as a comparator?
- The panel compared the "structure and implementation" of the two uses. Utah Code § 58-37-309 limits the exemption to psilocybin or MDMA in FDA Phase 3 testing, used only under a qualifying healthcare system's "direct supervision and control," with reporting requirements and hospital pharmaceutical and psychiatric regulation. Religious use had no comparable safeguards, the panel declined to credit Singularism's voluntary ones, and it wrote: "Because risks differ for secular and religious uses, the district court shouldn't have equated these risks."
- Has the DEA ever granted a psilocybin religious exemption?
- Not as of GAO's audit. GAO-24-106630, published May 30, 2024, found that from FY2016 through January 2024, 24 petitioners sought a religious exemption and none was granted. Of six psilocybin petitions, three were withdrawn and three were pending, from about eight months to over three years. The one reported grant, announced by Church of Gaia in Spokane in May 2025, was for ayahuasca only, and its terms have not been published.
- Does this case make psilocybin legal anywhere new?
- No. Psilocybin and psilocyn are listed by name in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. § 812(c), Schedule I(c), items (15) and (16). The surviving Utah RFRA injunction is a preliminary order in one case, and Utah's § 58-37-309 exemption is limited to Phase 3 investigational material under institutional supervision. Neither creates a defense for a third party or a route to buy from unlicensed sellers.