State v. Mooney

2004 UT 49 (2004) · Supreme Court of Utah · June 22, 2004 · No. No. 20010787

Summary

The Supreme Court of Utah held that the federal Religious Peyote Exemption in 21 C.F.R. § 1307.31 is incorporated into the Utah Controlled Substances Act. The court concluded that the exemption applies by its plain language to members of the Native American Church without regard to membership in a federally recognized tribe. The court reversed the district court and remanded for reconsideration of the defendants' motion to dismiss.

Holdings

  1. Utah law incorporates the federal exemption for the religious use of peyote in bona fide ceremonies of the Native American Church because the exemption is a specific exception to peyote's classification as a controlled substance under Utah Code section 58-37-4(2)(a)(iii).
  2. The federal exemption applies to all members of the Native American Church who use peyote in bona fide religious ceremonies; it does not, on its face, require membership in a federally recognized tribe.
  3. A Utah court is not required to defer to a federal agency's interpretation of a federal regulation incorporated into Utah law, particularly where the agency interpretation conflicts with the regulation's plain language and raises due process concerns.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the Utah Controlled Substances Act incorporates the federal Religious Peyote Exemption in 21 C.F.R. § 1307.31.
  2. Whether the federal exemption protects members of the Native American Church who use peyote in bona fide religious ceremonies without regard to membership in a federally recognized Native American tribe.
  3. Whether the court should defer to the DEA's asserted interpretation limiting the exemption to members of federally recognized tribes.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded

Cases Cited (20)

  • Peyote Way Church of God, Inc. v. Thornburgh, 922 F.2d 1210, 1212 (5th Cir. 1991)(discussed)
  • United States v. Boyll, 774 F. Supp. 1333, 1335, 1338 (D.N.M. 1991)(followed)
  • Native Am. Church v. United States, 468 F. Supp. 1247, 1248-49 (S.D.N.Y. 1979)(discussed)
  • Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 878-80, 890 (1990)(discussed)
  • Ward v. Richfield City, 798 P.2d 757, 759 (Utah 1990)(followed)
  • Dick Simon Trucking, Inc. v. State Tax Comm'n, 2004 UT 11, ¶ 17, 84 P.3d 1197(followed)
  • State v. Mohi, 901 P.2d 991, 1009 (Utah 1995)(followed)
  • Provo City Corp. v. State, 795 P.2d 1120, 1125 (Utah 1990)(followed)
  • State v. Lindquist, 674 P.2d 1234, 1237 (Utah 1983)(followed)
  • Ray v. Atl. Richfield Co., 435 U.S. 151, 158 (1978)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 20.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…