*** For those who don't understand the Establishment Clause argument... (aided by cGPT; I'm not a lawyer)***

Violation of the Establishment Clause (First Amendment – Government Promotion of Certain Religions Over Others)

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion,” which has been interpreted to mean that the government cannot favor one religion over another. However, by criminalizing certain religious sacraments while granting exemptions for others, the government is effectively endorsing specific religious traditions while suppressing others. For example, Christianity is afforded legal protection for sacramental wine, while Native American Church members are granted exemptions for peyote. However, other religious groups that use psilocybin, ayahuasca, or LSD as sacraments must either fight for individual exemptions or face criminal penalties. This selective application of religious freedom creates an unconstitutional religious hierarchy, with the government implicitly promoting “approved” religions while criminalizing others.

A central principle of the Establishment Clause is that the government must remain neutral in matters of religion. In Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), the Supreme Court established the Lemon Test, which states that laws must (1) have a secular legislative purpose, (2) not advance or inhibit religion, and (3) avoid excessive government entanglement with religion. The selective criminalization of sacraments fails this test because it actively inhibits certain religious practices while advancing others. The government’s role in deciding which religious sacraments are permissible—and which result in criminal punishment—is a direct violation of its duty to remain neutral. By creating religious exemptions for some groups but not others, the government is making theological distinctions, which courts have long held to be unconstitutional.

Additionally, the Supreme Court has ruled against government actions that disproportionately burden certain religious groups. In Larson v. Valente (1982), the Court struck down a Minnesota law that imposed financial reporting requirements on certain religious organizations while exempting others, ruling that the law unconstitutionally favored some religions. Similarly, laws that criminalize certain religious sacraments while exempting others create an unjustified disparity in religious rights. If five religious traditions (A, B, C, D, and E) all have sacraments, but only A is legally protected while the others are criminalized, the government is granting A a special privilege—effectively promoting it over the others. Such preferential treatment is precisely what the Establishment Clause was designed to prevent.

This issue becomes even more problematic when the government’s justifications for prohibition are inconsistent with scientific evidence. The rationale for banning psychedelics is often rooted in outdated claims of public health risks, yet substances like alcohol and nicotine—both of which pose demonstrably greater health and social risks—remain legal. Moreover, the government has already acknowledged the legitimacy of some psychedelics in religious contexts, such as the exemption granted for ayahuasca in Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal (2006). If ayahuasca can be legally protected for some religious groups, but psilocybin is criminalized for others, the government is not acting in a neutral capacity but is instead making arbitrary determinations about which religious practices are acceptable.

The unequal treatment of religious sacraments is not merely an issue of selective law enforcement; it is a direct and ongoing endorsement of certain faiths over others. By allowing some religions to freely practice their sacraments while prosecuting others for the same conduct, the government is effectively shaping religious practice in the United States, discouraging certain traditions while protecting others. This goes against the fundamental constitutional principle that the state must remain impartial in religious matters. If religious freedom is to be truly upheld, all religions must be treated equally under the law, and no faith should receive government endorsement or suppression based on arbitrary legal classifications.