Psychedelics, Rights Religion & Psychedelic Churches | Cannabis Law Report | Where to buy Skittles Moonrock online

Learn how to order CBD Vape online. TOP QUALITY GRADE A++

Cannabyss Inc. is the best place online to buy top quality weed, cannabis, vape, marijuana and CBD products. Get your borderless orders delivered at the pickup spot with ease. Top Grade products for client satisfaction.

👉 Click here to Visit our shop! 🛒

The second in a series of articles by RN Collins about legal issues, concepts and psychedelics

AUTHOR

Introduction

On a cool spring morning in Oregon, congregants gather quietly in a small, nondescript building on the edge of town. Inside, handmade altars draped in cloth are adorned with flowers, feathers, and photographs of ancestors. The scent of sage and palo santo fills the air. At the center, a ceremonial leader — a Black woman who founded this entheogenic church to serve BIPOC communities healing intergenerational trauma — prepares a brew of ayahuasca. For her, this sacrament is not recreational but a sacred tool for reconnection with spirit, processing grief, and reclaiming practices long suppressed by colonization and U.S. drug policy. Yet despite its profound religious purpose, the church operates under a constant shadow of legal risk. The brew, containing the Schedule I compound DMT, is prohibited under the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. §§ 801–971) unless the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) grants a religious exemption (DEA, 2009). Two majority-white, Brazilian-origin churches — União do Vegetal (UDV) and Santo Daime — won federal protection only after years of costly litigation (Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 [2006]; Church of the Holy Light of the Queen v. Mukasey, 615 F. Supp. 2d 1210 [D. Or. 2009]).

As of August 2025, no publicly documented Black-led or Indigenous-led entheogenic church has received DEA approval through the petition process

(Center for the Study of Law and Religion, 2021). This disparity is not accidental. For decades, law enforcement and regulatory agencies have disproportionately targeted spiritual and healing practices rooted in Black, Indigenous, Latinx, and immigrant communities, framing them as criminal rather than legitimate religious exercise (Alexander, 2020). Even peyote ceremonies, federally protected for the Native American Church, remain inaccessible to many Indigenous people outside federally recognized tribes (Smith, 2012), while arrests for comparable activities have historically fallen hardest on low-income and racialized groups (Nutt et al., 2010). Against this backdrop, the question becomes urgent:

Whose spirituality gets recognized — and whose gets raided? Article 2 examines the U.S. legal terrain that entheogenic churches must navigate — from constitutional protections to DEA procedures — and explores how race and class shape which communities can practice their faith free from state interference.

Legal Foundations: First Amendment & RFRA Legal Framework Overview

Any discussion of psychedelic churches in the United States begins with two pillars: the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of 1993.

Together, they define the legal parameters for entheogenic religious protections—while also revealing how race, class, and access to resources profoundly shape outcomes. First Amendment Protections The First Amendment guarantees that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” (U.S. Const. amend. I). In theory, this Free Exercise Clause shields religious practice from government interference.

However, Employment Division v. Smith (494 U.S. 872, 1990) narrowed its scope: the Court held that Oregon could deny unemployment benefits to two Native American men dismissed for sacramental peyote use, ruling that neutral, generally applicable laws—including drug prohibitions—do not violate free exercise even if they burden religious practice. C

ritics argue that Smith disproportionately harmed minority and Indigenous religions, forcing them to seek legislative or political exemptions—a process easier for well-funded, majority-white groups (Seeger, 2022; Hinojosa, 2020). As Jane Mayer (2021) notes, litigation costs and political capital often determine whose “free exercise” is respected.

RFRA’s Restoration and Limits In response to Smith, Congress enacted RFRA (42 U.S.C. § 2000bb–1), reinstating the requirement that government actions burdening religion must further a compelling interest using the least restrictive means.

RFRA has been pivotal for psychedelic churches: in Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal (546 U.S. 418, 2006), the Supreme Court unanimously held the government failed to show a compelling interest in prohibiting the UDV’s sacramental ayahuasca use—particularly given the existing peyote exemption for the Native American Church. Yet RFRA’s protections are uneven in practice. The UDV’s victory—supported by substantial funding, experienced counsel, and a largely white U.S. membership—contrasts sharply with the vulnerability of smaller, Black- or Indigenous-led churches, which often lack resources to mount multi-year litigation or navigate DEA processes (Alexander, 2020; Mayer, 2021).

The DEA Petition Process

The DEA’s 2009 guidance outlines a petition process for religious exemptions under the CSA (DEA, 2009). Applicants must disclose theology, membership, sacrament sourcing, and operational details—information that, if denied, could expose them to enforcement. The process is not bound by strict timelines (Center for the Study of Law and Religion, 2021), creating prolonged uncertainty. As of August 2025, no publicly documented Black-led or Indigenous-led church has received DEA approval. Race, Class, and Legal Access Both the First Amendment and RFRA are formally race-neutral but operate within a structurally unequal system. Wealthier groups—often with white leadership—can afford expert testimony and legal fees. Marginalized communities, including the original stewards of these plant medicines, face over-policing and exclusion from political channels (Hinojosa, 2020; Alexander, 2020). The disparity underscores the gap between rights “on paper” and rights “in practice.”

Controlled Substances Act & the DEA’s Role The CSA’s Classification of Psychedelics

The Controlled Substances Act (CSA) of 1970 categorizes drugs into five schedules based on potential for abuse, accepted medical use, and safety under supervision (21 U.S.C. §§ 801–971). Classic psychedelics—including psilocybin, LSD, DMT, and mescaline—are listed in

Schedule I, defined as substances with “no currently accepted medical use” and a “high potential for abuse.” Peyote, central to many Indigenous spiritual practices, is also Schedule I. From a religious freedom perspective, Schedule I status is a near-total barrier: possession or distribution is a felony unless an exemption applies. While the CSA is facially neutral, enforcement data reveal stark racial disparities. Black and Latinx individuals are disproportionately arrested and prosecuted for controlled substances—including psychedelics— despite similar usage rates across racial groups (Alexander, 2020; Hart & Ksir, 2019).

The DEA’s Enforcement Authority

The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) enforces the CSA through criminal investigations, civil forfeitures, licensing, and administrative adjudication.

For psychedelic churches, DEA powers include:

• Criminal raids and prosecutions for unauthorized Schedule I use.

• Civil forfeiture of property linked to CSA violations.

• Licensing and registration for research or limited handling of controlled substances.

• Review of religious exemption petitions through its Office of Diversion Control. Critics argue the DEA exercises discretion unevenly, often targeting smaller, BIPOC-led congregations while larger, well-funded organizations negotiate exemptions or withstand litigation (Mayer, 2021; Hinojosa, 2020).

Opaque Exemption Process

The DEA’s 2009 guidance provides a petition procedure for religious exemptions, but applicants face extensive disclosure requirements about theology, membership, and sacrament sourcing (DEA, 2009).

The agency is not bound by strict timelines for decisions (Center for the Study of Law and Religion, 2021), leaving churches exposed to raids or arrests during prolonged reviews.

As of August 2025, no publicly documented Black-led or Indigenous-led church has received DEA approval—a data point corroborated by Emory University’s 2021 survey of petitions. This procedural opacity creates a de facto wealth barrier: only groups with legal teams, scientific testing capacity, and financial resilience—like União do Vegetal (UDV) or Santo Daime—can navigate it successfully.

Intersecting Burdens: Race, Class, and Policing The CSA’s enforcement history is intertwined with the War on Drugs, which has disproportionately targeted communities of color. Federal analyses show that Black Americans are over three times more likely than whites to be arrested for drug possession, despite similar usage rates (The Sentencing Project, 2023). Indigenous groups face compounded risks: raids on ayahuasca or peyote ceremonies not only disrupt religious life but also intersect with broader struggles over land rights and cultural survival (O’Brien, 2021). This disparity underscores the paradox: the DEA frames its petition process as an avenue for lawful religious practice, yet the communities most historically connected to these plants remain the least protected under current law.

Landmark Cases & Precedents for Psychedelic Churches

The modern U.S. legal understanding of psychedelic religious rights rests on a handful of influential court decisions. Together, these cases show how constitutional protections, statutory shields, and structural inequities intersect to shape which faith groups prevail.

1. Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal (2006) The Supreme Court unanimously upheld the União do Vegetal’s (UDV) use of hoasca tea (containing DMT) under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) (546 U.S. 418, 2006). The Court ruled the government had not demonstrated a compelling interest sufficient to override RFRA—especially since federal law already exempted peyote for the Native American Church (NAC). UDV’s victory was aided by experienced counsel, expert testimony, and a predominantly non-Indigenous U.S. membership—factors critics note are rarely available to smaller or BIPOC-led groups (Meneghetti, 2022).

2. Church of the Holy Light of the Queen v. Mukasey (2008) Following O Centro, a federal district court granted the Santo Daime church in Oregon a permanent injunction against DEA interference (615 F. Supp. 2d 1210, D. Or. 2008). The decision reaffirmed that sincere religious practice using ayahuasca could outweigh CSA prohibitions under RFRA. As with UDV, institutional stability and legal resources were decisive.

3. Peyote & the Native American Church The oldest federal protection for psychedelic religious use is the NAC’s peyote exemption (21 C.F.R. § 1307.31). While hailed as a milestone for Indigenous rights, its enforcement has often privileged federally recognized tribes over unrecognized or urban Native practitioners (Feeney, 2019; Langford, 2019). Peyote habitat loss from overharvesting and land development now threatens the sacrament’s availability (AP News, 2024).

4. United States v. Boyll (1991) In this case, a white NAC member was charged with peyote possession. The court dismissed the indictment, holding that the peyote exemption applied to all NAC members, regardless of race or tribal status (774 F. Supp. 1333, D.N.M. 1991). While expanding access, the ruling sparked debate within Indigenous communities about cultural appropriation and dilution of sovereignty (Labate et al., 2017).

Patterns Across Cases

Across these precedents, a consistent pattern emerges: well-resourced plaintiffs—often majority-white or internationally connected—win exemptions, while smaller, BIPOC-led congregations face raids or prosecutions without relief. These cases thus illuminate how formal equality in the law masks structural inequality in its application (Hinojosa, 2020; Alexander, 2020).

Current Litigation and Emerging Challenges

Singularism in Utah: Psilocybin as a Sacrament In August 2025, U.S. District Judge Jill N. Parrish (D. Utah) halted a county prosecution of Singularism, a Washington D.C.–based faith community that incorporates psilocybin mushrooms into its ceremonies, citing evidence of “bad-faith” enforcement designed to suppress religious exercise rather than uphold drug laws (Deseret News, 2025; Utah News Dispatch, 2025). The order required the return of confiscated psilocybin and paused proceedings pending resolution of the group’s constitutional claims under Utah’s RFRA-style statute. Singularism is notable for being unaffiliated with historic Indigenous or Brazilian ayahuasca churches, demonstrating the courts’ increasing—but still selective—willingness to entertain novel entheogenic traditions. Its success was aided by experienced legal counsel, underscoring how access to representation remains pivotal for religious protections (Marijuana Moment, 2025). Church of Gaia: First DEA-Approved Exemption Without Litigation In May 2025,

Church of Gaia, based in Spokane, Washington, became the first group to secure a DEA-granted religious exemption for ayahuasca without resorting to litigation (Harris Sliwoski LLP, 2025; Emerge Law Group, 2025; Cato Institute, 2023). While groundbreaking, this case highlights equity concerns: Gaia’s institutional resources—legal teams, compliance staff, and media strategy—are not available to most BIPOC-led or working-class congregations. Moreover, the DEA’s criteria and timeline for exemptions remain opaque, leaving many applicants in prolonged uncertainty (GAO, 2024). Peyote Scarcity and Cultural Survival Early 2025 warnings from the Native American Church (NAC) flagged rapid peyote habitat loss caused by overharvesting, land development, and wellness-market tourism detached from Indigenous stewardship (AP News, 2024; The Guardian, 2025). For NAC communities, peyote scarcity threatens both religious practice and cultural continuity. By contrast, wealthier non Indigenous consumers may substitute alternative psychedelics or access private peyote supplies, illustrating racial and economic asymmetries in sacrament availability. A Shifting Legal Landscape States like Utah are testing broader religious-freedom protections for entheogenic practice, while federal agencies signal tentative openness to administrative solutions. Yet the overarching pattern persists: legal protection is most readily obtained by groups with financial capacity, political networks, and racial legitimacy (Alexander, 2020; George et al., 2020). Without structural reform, BIPOC-led and low-income communities remain vulnerable to raids, prosecutions, and cultural dispossession.

Policy Reform Pathways

From Ad Hoc Accommodation to Structural Equity Most U.S. psychedelic religious rights recognition has occurred reactively—often after years of expensive litigation. The victories of União do Vegetal in Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal (546 U.S. 418, 2006) and Santo Daime in Church of the Holy Light of the Queen v. Mukasey (615 F. Supp. 2d 1210, D. Or. 2009) came only through extensive legal resources. This ad hoc approach inherently disadvantages smaller, BIPOC-led, or working-class congregations that cannot sustain such battles (Vecsey, 1991; Mayer, 2021).

1. Statutory Amendments Congress could amend the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) or RFRA to: • Explicitly protect ceremonial use of Schedule I plants for bona fide religious practice. • Co-develop criteria with affected communities, similar to AIRFA’s peyote provision (American Indian Religious Freedom Act Amendments of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-344). • Include equity-focused legislative findings referencing ICCPR Art. 18 and ICERD Art. 5.

2. DEA Regulatory Reform The DEA could issue binding rules establishing: • Transparent exemption criteria and timelines. • An independent review panel with Indigenous and community representation. • Appeal rights for denied petitions. Current guidance (DEA, 2020) is non-binding and has left petitions unresolved for years (GAO, 2024).

3. Community Legal Aid Federal or philanthropic funding could support legal defense and compliance for churches lacking resources. Without this support, enforcement disparities will persist (Dobkin de Rios & Smith, 1977; Alexander, 2020).

4. Data Transparency & Disparity Audits Public reporting of exemption outcomes, redacted for privacy, would expose bias patterns. Racial equity audits could determine whether Indigenous or Black-led groups are disproportionately denied or delayed (Lander, 2019).

5. Federal–State Coordination States adopting decriminalization or regulated access (e.g., Oregon, Colorado) should integrate religious-use exemptions and equity mandates to prevent conflicts with federal enforcement (Bergman, 2020).

6. Embedding Racial Equity Safeguards Mandate racial impact assessments before implementing new rules. Require restorative measures—such as expungement of convictions tied to ceremonial use—and ensure affected communities have representation on regulatory boards. Why Reform Is Necessary Without proactive changes, U.S. law risks perpetuating the inequities exposed throughout Articles 1 and 2: raids, seizures, and the silencing of Indigenous and Black spiritual traditions. Structural reform would move psychedelic policy beyond piecemeal exemptions toward an equitable, rights-based framework.

Closing Reflections

The U.S. legal story of entheogenic religious practice is one of paradox. The First Amendment and RFRA ostensibly create wide protections, yet access to these protections is uneven—too often dependent on wealth, political capital, and whiteness.

Well-resourced churches like União do Vegetal and Santo Daime carved out durable rights only after years of costly litigation (Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal, 2006; Church of the Holy Light of the Queen v. Mukasey, 2009). Meanwhile, Indigenous- or Black-led churches face raids, prosecutions, and forfeitures for similar practices, often without even reaching a courtroom (Alexander, 2020; Lander, 2019).

This disparity is not a minor procedural flaw—it is a breach of the principle that constitutional rights should apply equally, regardless of race or class. It mirrors broader patterns in American law, where rights are frequently accessible only to those who can afford the fight (Mayer, 2021).

Structural reform is urgent. The pathways outlined in Section 6—statutory amendments, DEA transparency, racial impact audits, and community legal aid—are not theoretical. They are essential to preventing further erosion of Indigenous sovereignty and Black spiritual traditions under the weight of drug enforcement. Without such reforms, religious freedom will remain a privilege rather than a right. As the series transitions to Article 3, the focus widens. International and regional human rights bodies—from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights to the European Court of Human Rights—offer both inspiration and pressure points.

They remind us that sacred plant practices are part of global cultural heritage, and that U.S. exceptionalism cannot indefinitely shield discriminatory enforcement from scrutiny. Article 3 will therefore ask: When Indigenous healers, Afro-diasporic churches, or migrant practitioners cross borders with their sacraments, are they exercising a universal human right—or stepping into a legal minefield shaped by colonial histories and economic hierarchies?

The answer will shape not just psychedelic policy, but the credibility of human rights norms in an era of rapid commercialization.

References

Section 1 References • Alexander, M. (2020). The new Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness (10th anniversary ed.). The New Press. • Center for the Study of Law and Religion. (2021). Religious use of ayahuasca and U.S. law: A survey of DEA petitions. Emory University. • Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. §§ 801–971. • DEA. (2009). Guidance regarding petitions for religious exemption from the Controlled Substances Act. U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration. • Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (2006). • Church of the Holy Light of the Queen v. Mukasey, 615 F. Supp. 2d 1210 (D. Or. 2009). • Nutt, D. J., King, L. A., Phillips, L. D., & Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs. (2010). Drug harms in the UK: A multicriteria decision analysis. The Lancet, 376(9752), 1558–1565. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61462-6 • Smith, H. (2012). One nation under God: The triumph of the Native American Church. University of Oklahoma Press.

Section 2 References • Alexander, M. (2020). The new Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness (10th anniversary ed.). The New Press. • Center for the Study of Law and Religion. (2021). Religious use of ayahuasca and U.S. law: A survey of DEA petitions. Emory University. • DEA. (2009). Guidance regarding petitions for religious exemption from the Controlled Substances Act. U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration. • Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (2006). • Hinojosa, F. (2020). Race, religion, and the politics of belonging in America. Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 88(3), 683–710. • Mayer, J. (2021). The cost of religious freedom: Legal fees, inequality, and access to justice. Yale Law Journal Forum, 131, 45–66. • Seeger, L. (2022). Neutral laws and the free exercise of religion: Why Smith still hurts minority faiths. Harvard Civil Rights–Civil Liberties Law Review, 57, 113–156. • U.S. Const. amend. I. • 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb–1. • Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990).

Section 3 References • 21 U.S.C. §§ 801–971 (Controlled Substances Act). • Alexander, M. (2020). The new Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness (10th anniversary ed.). The New Press. • Center for the Study of Law and Religion. (2021). Religious use of ayahuasca and U.S. law: A survey of DEA petitions. Emory University. • DEA. (2009). Guidance regarding petitions for religious exemption from the Controlled Substances Act. U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration. • Hart, C. L., & Ksir, C. (2019). Why drug laws have disproportionate effects on minority populations. Annual Review of Sociology, 45, 15–32. • Hinojosa, F. (2020). Race, religion, and the politics of belonging in America. Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 88(3), 683–710. • Mayer, J. (2021). The cost of religious freedom: Legal fees, inequality, and access to justice. Yale Law Journal Forum, 131, 45–66. • O’Brien, E. (2021). Religious exemptions and the Controlled Substances Act: Who gets protected? Georgetown Journal of Law & Public Policy, 19, 87–112. • The Sentencing Project. (2023). Report to the U.N. Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination: Racial disparities in drug enforcement in the United States. https://www.sentencingproject.org

References – Section 4 • 21 C.F.R. § 1307.31 (Peyote exemption). • Alexander, M. (2020). The new Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness (10th anniversary ed.). The New Press. • AP News. (2024, Dec 26). Peyote sacred to Native Americans threatened by overharvesting and development. • Feeney, K. (2019). Peyote and the Native American Church: An ethnobotanical, historical, and legal review. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 51(4), 315-326. • Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (2006). • Hinojosa, F. (2020). Race, religion, and the politics of belonging in America. Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 88(3), 683-710. • Labate, B. C., Cavnar, C., & Gearin, A. (2017). The world ayahuasca diaspora: Reinventions and controversies. Routledge. • Langford, J. M. (2019). Indigenous spiritual practices and the politics of recognition. Cultural Anthropology, 34(1), 86-113. • Meneghetti, F. (2022). RFRA and the selective success of psychedelic churches. Harvard Journal on Legislation, 59(2), 245-278. • Church of the Holy Light of the Queen v. Mukasey, 615 F. Supp. 2d 1210 (D. Or. 2008). • United States v. Boyll, 774 F. Supp. 1333 (D.N.M. 1991).

References – Section 5 Alexander, M. (2020). The New Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness (10th anniv. ed.). The New Press. AP News. (2024, December 26). Peyote sacred to Native Americans threatened by habitat loss and tourism. https://apnews.com Cato Institute. (2023). Psychedelics, the DEA, and regulating religion. https://www.cato.org Deseret News. (2025, August 5). Lawsuit puts Utah’s new religious-freedom law to the test. https://www.deseret.com Emerge Law Group. (2025, May 21). DEA approves Church of Gaia’s petition for ayahuasca use. https://www.emergelawgroup.com GAO. (2024, May). DEA’s religious exemption process: Opportunities to improve transparency. U.S. Government Accountability Office. George, J. R., Michaels, T. I., Sevelius, J., & Williams, M. T. (2020). The psychedelic renaissance and the limitations of colorblind psychedelic research. Journal of Psychedelic Studies, 4(1), 4–15. https://doi.org/10.1556/2054.2019.015 Harris Sliwoski LLP. (2025, May 20). DEA gives Church of Gaia green light on ayahuasca. https://harris-sliwoski.com Marijuana Moment. (2025, August 7). Federal judge sides with Singularism in psilocybin religious-freedom case. https://www.marijuanamoment.net The Guardian. (2025, January 11). “White people shouldn’t mess with it”: Peyote scarcity alarms Native leaders. https://www.theguardian.com Utah News Dispatch. (2025, August 6). Judge halts prosecution of psilocybin church under Utah’s religious-freedom statute. https://www.utahnewsdispatch.com

References – Section 6 Alexander, M. (2020). The new Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness (10th anniv. ed.). The New Press. American Indian Religious Freedom Act Amendments of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-344, 108 Stat. 3125. Bergman, A. (2020). Religious Freedom Restoration Acts in the states. Harvard Law Review, 133(7), 1890–1921. DEA. (2020). Guidance regarding religious exemptions from the Controlled Substances Act. U.S. Department of Justice. Dobkin de Rios, M., & Smith, D. E. (1977). Psychedelic churches: The legal and social impact of the Peyote Way. Journal of Psychedelic Drugs, 9(3), 205–213. GAO. (2024). DEA’s religious exemption process: Opportunities to improve transparency. U.S. Government Accountability Office. Lander, E. (2019). Racial inequities in drug policy enforcement: A global perspective. Health and Human Rights Journal, 21(1), 35–46. Mayer, J. (2021). The cost of religious freedom: Legal fees, inequality, and access to justice. Yale Law Journal Forum, 131, 45–66. Vecsey, C. (1991). Handbook of American Indian religious freedom. Crossroad.

References – Section 7 Alexander, M. (2020). The new Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness (10th anniv. ed.). The New Press. Church of the Holy Light of the Queen v. Mukasey, 615 F. Supp. 2d 1210 (D. Or. 2009). Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (2006). Lander, E. (2019). Racial inequities in drug policy enforcement: A global perspective. Health and Human Rights Journal, 21(1), 35–46. Mayer, J. (2021). The cost of religious freedom: Legal fees, inequality, and access to justice. Yale Law Journal Forum, 131, 45–66.