Florida Ayahuasca Church Sues After DEA Raid: What the Case Means

Florida Ayahuasca Church Sues Federal Government After DEA Raid

A Central Florida church that uses ayahuasca in religious ceremonies is suing the federal government after Drug Enforcement Administration agents raided its property and seized its sacrament.

The lawsuit places Florida near the center of a growing national conflict: When does the federal government’s enforcement of drug laws become an unlawful burden on religious exercise?

According to reporting by Florida Politics, Our Sacred Sanctuary filed a federal lawsuit accusing U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi, the DEA and other federal officials of violating its religious rights. The case, Our Sacred Sanctuary, Inc. et al. v. Blanche et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida under case number 6:26-cv-00278.

The church says ayahuasca is not a recreational drug within its faith. It describes the psychoactive tea as a sacrament central to the sincere religious practice of its members.

Federal law, however, generally treats DMT—the psychedelic compound present in ayahuasca—as a Schedule I controlled substance. That collision between sacrament and controlled substance is now headed into federal court.

What happened to Our Sacred Sanctuary?

Our Sacred Sanctuary says DEA agents raided the church on December 6, 2024. According to the lawsuit as described by Florida Politics, agents seized sacred plants and other church property worth thousands of dollars.

The church alleges that the raid and seizure violated the First Amendment and the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, commonly called RFRA. It is asking the court to recognize protections for its religious use of ayahuasca and prevent further federal interference.

The church states on its website that federal authorities informed it in November 2025 that they would not pursue criminal charges after an investigation. That is the church’s account, and the absence of charges is not the same thing as a court ruling or a DEA exemption. The civil lawsuit seeks broader and more lasting protection for the congregation and its practices.

The legal dispute is ongoing. The allegations in the complaint are claims by the plaintiffs and have not automatically been established as facts by a final court judgment.

What is ayahuasca?

Ayahuasca is a psychoactive brew with a long history of ceremonial use among Indigenous communities in the Amazon basin. Traditional preparations commonly combine the Banisteriopsis caapi vine with a DMT-containing plant such as Psychotria viridis.

The combination matters. DMT is normally broken down when swallowed, but compounds in the vine inhibit that process and allow the DMT to become orally active. Experiences can be intense and may include major changes in perception, emotion and sense of self.

Calling ayahuasca “plant medicine” or a “sacrament” does not, by itself, change its legal status. DMT remains federally controlled, and ayahuasca is not generally legal for personal, commercial or therapeutic use in the United States.

Are psychedelic churches legal in Florida?

There is no simple yes-or-no answer.

A church does not receive an automatic exemption from federal drug laws merely by identifying a psychedelic as a sacrament, forming a nonprofit or invoking religious freedom. Legal protection generally depends on the facts of the organization, the sincerity of its beliefs, the centrality of the practice and whether the government can justify substantially burdening that practice.

Florida also has its own criminal laws. Federal religious protection does not necessarily answer every question under state or local law.

In plain English: psychedelic churches are not a legal shortcut. Every organization operates within a complicated mix of federal controlled-substance law, constitutional protections, RFRA standards, state law and public-safety requirements.

Why the Religious Freedom Restoration Act matters

Congress enacted RFRA in 1993. The law says the federal government generally may not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion unless it can show that the burden advances a compelling governmental interest through the least restrictive means.

That standard gives religious claimants meaningful protection, but it does not guarantee victory. Courts may examine questions such as:

• Are the religious beliefs sincerely held?
• Is the sacramental practice genuinely religious rather than primarily commercial or recreational?
• Does enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act substantially burden that practice?
• Can the government protect health and safety through rules less restrictive than a total prohibition?
• Does the organization have credible controls for storage, handling, diversion prevention and participant safety?

The government does not have to agree with a religion’s theology. At the same time, courts can distinguish sincere religious exercise from a business attempting to use religious language as legal cover.

Has the Supreme Court protected religious ayahuasca use before?

Yes—but the ruling was specific to the religious group and evidence before the Court.

In the 2006 case Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a preliminary injunction protecting a small religious group’s sacramental use of hoasca, another name for an ayahuasca preparation. The Court concluded that the federal government had not met its burden under RFRA at that stage of the case.

The decision was an important victory for religious freedom. It did not declare ayahuasca legal for everyone, nor did it automatically protect every organization calling itself a psychedelic church.

This is why the Our Sacred Sanctuary lawsuit matters. It asks a Florida federal court to apply religious-freedom principles to another congregation, another factual record and a raid that has already taken place.

How is this case different from Soul Quest?

Central Florida has already played a major role in the debate over ayahuasca churches.

Soul Quest Church of Mother Earth, an Orlando-area organization, sought a federal religious exemption for its use of ayahuasca. The DEA denied its petition in 2021, citing concerns that included religious sincerity and safety protocols. Soul Quest’s later legal challenges did not produce the protection it sought, and the organization eventually closed.

Our Sacred Sanctuary was formed by people formerly associated with Soul Quest, according to research published by Harvard Divinity School’s Center for the Study of World Religions. That history is likely to draw attention, but the new church’s claims must be evaluated on their own facts.

The contrast also shows why these cases are difficult. The law does not recognize “psychedelic churches” as one uniform category. Each group’s beliefs, history, structure, practices, safety standards and dealings with regulators can affect the outcome.

What could the Florida ayahuasca church lawsuit change?

If Our Sacred Sanctuary wins meaningful protection, the case could give other sincere religious organizations a clearer model for challenging federal enforcement. A ruling could also clarify what evidence courts expect when evaluating ayahuasca ceremonies under RFRA.

If the government prevails, the decision could reinforce the DEA’s authority to raid or restrict groups that possess controlled substances without an exemption or court order—even when those groups assert a religious purpose.

The court could also reach a narrower result. Federal cases often turn on procedure, standing, jurisdiction or the wording of a requested injunction without producing a sweeping answer about psychedelic religion.

Whatever happens, the case is another sign that psychedelic policy is developing through multiple channels at once: scientific research, state legislation, local reform, agency decisions and religious-freedom litigation.

What this case does not mean

The headlines may sound dramatic, so several points deserve emphasis:

• Ayahuasca has not become broadly legal in Florida.
• Joining or creating a church does not automatically provide immunity from drug laws.
• A sincere religious belief may support a RFRA claim, but protection is fact-specific.
• The filing of a lawsuit is not the same as winning the lawsuit.
• Religious use, clinical research, medical treatment and adult recreational use are separate legal categories.

Anyone facing a real legal question involving a controlled substance should consult a qualified attorney. An online article, a membership card or a church’s own legal interpretation is not a substitute for individualized legal advice.

Education must come before assumption

The Our Sacred Sanctuary case raises profound questions about who gets to define religion, which spiritual traditions receive legal recognition and how a government should regulate practices that involve powerful psychoactive substances.

It also exposes the danger of oversimplification. One side should not be dismissed merely because its sacrament is unfamiliar to mainstream American religion. The other should not be ignored when it raises legitimate questions involving health, safety and diversion.

At Learn Euphoria, our position is simple: legalization through education. Psychedelic policy should be based on accurate information, honest risk assessment and respect for both civil liberties and public safety.

The Florida lawsuit may eventually create new guidance for psychedelic churches. For now, it should be understood as an active legal challenge—not a universal permission slip.

Frequently asked questions

Is ayahuasca legal in Florida?

Ayahuasca is not generally legal in Florida because it typically contains DMT, a Schedule I controlled substance under federal law. Certain religious organizations may obtain fact-specific protection through a DEA exemption, settlement or court order, but that protection does not extend automatically to the general public.

Can a church legally use psychedelics?

Some religious groups have secured legal protection for sacramental use of controlled substances. A religious claim alone is not enough. Courts and regulators may examine sincerity, religious practice, safety, storage and diversion controls, among other facts.

What is RFRA?

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act is a federal law that limits the federal government’s ability to substantially burden sincere religious exercise. The government may still prevail if it proves that its action is the least restrictive way to advance a compelling interest.

Did the Supreme Court legalize ayahuasca?

No. In Gonzales v. O Centro, the Supreme Court protected a particular church at the preliminary-injunction stage under RFRA. The ruling did not legalize ayahuasca for everyone.

Has Our Sacred Sanctuary won its lawsuit?

No final victory is established by the initial reporting. The church filed its federal case in February 2026, and the dispute remains subject to court proceedings and future rulings.