Ayahuasca is not legal as a general matter in the US: DMT is Schedule I. See RFRA rulings for two churches, plus Colorado, Oregon, Oakland and Seattle rules.
Ayahuasca is not legal as a general matter in the United States because the brew contains N,N-dimethyltryptamine (DMT), a Schedule I controlled substance under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). The text of 21 CFR 1308.11 names neither ayahuasca nor its plants. It lists DMT and controls any material, compound, mixture, or preparation containing any quantity of DMT. The two rulings reviewed here covered specific religious groups and create no general exemption. For broader context on the compound itself, read our comparison in the DMT vs ayahuasca guide.
All sources were retrieved on October 27, 2026. State-level regulatory structures in Colorado and Oregon define regulated programs around psilocybin, with Colorado allowing DMT to be added if approved on or after June 1, 2026, while municipal enforcement resolutions in cities like Oakland and Seattle address local prosecution priorities without amending criminal codes. Federal and state law, case-specific court rulings, and local policies differ, and a ruling for one religious group does not make use legal for any other person. Readers evaluating their individual legal exposure should consult a licensed attorney. Review our breakdown of domestic frameworks in what psychedelics are legal in the US and inspect specific regional statutes using the state-by-state legal status tool.
| Jurisdiction or Context | Current Legal Status | Governing Legal Authority | Scope and Limitations |
|---|---|---|---|
| United States Federal Law | Not legal as a general matter: DMT is Schedule I and the listing covers any preparation containing it (federal; 21 CFR 1308.11(d)(19), retrieved October 27, 2026). | 21 CFR 1308.11(d)(19) and the Controlled Substances Act. | Controls any material, compound, mixture, or preparation containing DMT under Schedule I. |
| Federal Religious Use | Court-ordered relief for particular churches in the cases cited (federal; O Centro, 2006; Holy Light memorandum, July 18, 2011). It gives no permission to others. | Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000bb-1. | Relief applies to the church claimants in the cases cited (for example the UDV). |
| Colorado State Law | Regulated program covers psilocybin and psilocyn; the statute lets DMT be added if recommended and approved on or after June 1, 2026; approval status not verified (retrieved October 27, 2026). | C.R.S. 44-50-103(13) and Proposition 122. | The regulated model covers psilocybin; DMT may be added only if recommended and approved. |
| Oregon State Law | Regulated program covers psilocybin products and services; ayahuasca and DMT are not named in the ORS 475A.220 definitions (retrieved October 27, 2026). | Oregon Revised Statutes 475A (Measure 109). | Defines psilocybin products as psilocybin-producing fungi and mixtures or substances containing a detectable amount of psilocybin; does not name DMT or ayahuasca. |
| City Decriminalization Policies | Local enforcement policy restricting city resources (Oakland, June 4, 2019) or setting lowest priority (Seattle, October 2021); does not alter state or federal law. | Oakland City Council actions and Seattle Resolution 32021. | Directs municipal resource spending but does not repeal state or federal criminal law. |
| International Treaties | Not subject to mandatory control under the 1971 Convention (international; INCB 2025). | International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) 2025 technical eBook. | The INCB says these preparations are not under international control; national law can differ. |
Under federal regulation 21 CFR 1308.11(d)(19), DMT (DEA code 7435) is a Schedule I hallucinogenic substance, and the DEA says DMT is present in ayahuasca. The regulation applies Schedule I controls to any material, compound, mixture, or preparation that contains any quantity of the hallucinogenic substance. In its December 2025 drug fact sheet, the DEA states that DMT is present in brewed concoctions like ayahuasca and hoasca, and that DMT remains controlled under Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act.
The text of 21 CFR 1308.11 contains no entry naming ayahuasca, Banisteriopsis caapi, Psychotria viridis, or harmine. The DMT entry in the listing is by chemical name, and the text names none of the ayahuasca plants. However, the absence of specific plant names does not make the finished brew lawful under federal law. Because the DEA says the brew contains DMT, the Schedule I listing of 'any material, compound, mixture, or preparation' containing DMT reaches it by the plain text of the regulation, though no DEA statement on the plants themselves was found. Our DMT guide covers the molecule.
Federal courts have granted RFRA relief to particular churches for sacramental teas: hoasca in O Centro and Daime tea in Church of the Holy Light of the Queen. These rulings concern those churches and teas; they do not create a general ayahuasca exception. Under 42 U.S.C. 2000bb-1(a) and (b), the federal government may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion unless the government demonstrates that application of the burden to the person is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling interest. In O Centro the Court applied this test to the particular claimant and held that Schedule I status alone is not a categorical answer. See RFRA and psychedelics.
A federal decision governing sacramental hoasca is Gonzales v. O Centro. In that case, the Supreme Court evaluated the sincere religious use of hoasca. The Court described hoasca as a sacramental tea made from two plants unique to the Amazon region. One plant, Psychotria viridis, contains DMT, and the other, Banisteriopsis caapi, supplies alkaloids that enhance its effects. The Supreme Court affirmed a preliminary injunction against federal enforcement. The Court held that the Government had not carried the burden expressly placed on it by Congress in RFRA to justify applying the Controlled Substances Act ban to the church's sincere sacramental use.
The Supreme Court in O Centro specifically rejected the federal government's position that the Schedule I status of DMT resolves the legal question. The Court established that the statutory listing of DMT does not provide a categorical answer that relieves the Government of its obligation to shoulder its burden under RFRA, mandating an individualized inquiry applied directly to the claimant. In a separate case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed another sacramental challenge in Church of the Holy Light of the Queen v. Holder (No. 09-35770, filed July 18, 2011). In an unpublished memorandum, the Ninth Circuit noted that the government did not challenge the district court's conclusion that an outright prohibition on the importation of Daime tea by the church violates RFRA. The appellate panel vacated the injunction as overbroad and remanded for the entry of a narrower order.
These rulings do not create general legal protection for the public. A ruling for a specific church applies to that claimant. Because RFRA requires the inquiry to be applied to the particular claimant (O Centro), a ruling for one religious group does not make use legal for any other person.
The Colorado and Oregon statutes define their regulated programs around psilocybin (Colorado also psilocyn) and do not name ayahuasca. While both states established regulated frameworks, their licensed programs cover psilocybin.
Colorado's Proposition 122, the Natural Medicine Health Act (2022), as filed with the Colorado Secretary of State, provided that until June 1, 2026, natural medicine includes only psilocybin and psilocyn. C.R.S. 44-50-103(13) defines natural medicine as psilocybin and psilocyn. It adds dimethyltryptamine, ibogaine and mescaline only if the advisory board recommends them and the state licensing authority's director and executive director approve them (for DMT and mescaline, for inclusion on or after June 1, 2026). The text of C.R.S. 44-50-103 does not mention ayahuasca by name. It excludes synthetic substances and synthetic analogs of the listed substances, and it excludes peyote from mescaline.
The statute text allows DMT to be added if approved. The sources retrieved here do not show whether the board or the licensing authority has approved DMT, and a licensed attorney can confirm current rules. Readers should not assume DMT or ayahuasca is currently regulated or permitted in Colorado. See our dedicated analysis in where is DMT legal.
Oregon maintains a separate statutory scope. In November 2020, Oregon voters passed Ballot Measure 109, codified under Chapter 475A of the Oregon Revised Statutes. According to the Oregon Health Authority, the statute directs the agency to license and regulate the manufacturing, transportation, delivery, sale, and purchase of psilocybin products and the provision of psilocybin services. Under ORS 475A.220, psilocybin products are defined as psilocybin-producing fungi and mixtures or substances containing a detectable amount of psilocybin. The ORS 475A.220 definitions (retrieved October 27, 2026) name psilocybin and psilocin and do not name ayahuasca or DMT. Whether any other Oregon or federal law applies to a particular person is a question for a licensed attorney.
Municipal decriminalization policies in cities such as Oakland and Seattle designate entheogenic plants as low law enforcement priorities without changing state or federal criminal statutes.
On June 4, 2019, the Oakland City Council approved Legistar file 18-1790, adopting a resolution directing that no city funds or resources be used to assist in the enforcement of laws imposing criminal penalties for the use and possession of entheogenic plants by adults. A footnote in the Oakland resolution text defines entheogenic plants as including extracted combinations of plants similar to ayahuasca. The matter record in the Oakland Legistar database shows the file as passed. While this measure restricts city funds and resources, it does not amend state statutes or change state or federal law.
Similarly, the Seattle City Council adopted Seattle Resolution 32021 in October 2021. The measure defines entheogens to encompass living, fresh, dried, or processed plant or fungal material, including teas or powders, explicitly listing ayahuasca tea alongside psilocybin mushrooms. The resolution declares that the investigation, arrest, and prosecution of entheogen-related activities should be among the city's lowest enforcement priorities. You can examine broader local policy trends in our guide to cities that decriminalized psilocybin.
Ayahuasca is not controlled under the United Nations 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances, but domestic prohibitions remain within the sovereign discretion of individual countries.
The official stance of global treaty monitors is outlined by the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB). In its 2025 technical publication on psychotropic substances, the INCB technical eBook clarifies that plant and fungal materials, including any preparations made from them, that contain substances listed in any of the schedules of the 1971 Convention are not under international control. The INCB specifically states that these unscheduled preparations include, but are not limited to, ayahuasca. While international treaties do not require signatory nations to control the brew, national governments retain the authority to enforce stricter domestic prohibitions, as the United States does through the Controlled Substances Act.
In Peru, the National Institute of Culture (INC) declared traditional knowledge and uses of ayahuasca by Amazonian native communities Cultural Patrimony of the Nation in Resolucion Directoral Nacional No. 836/INC, published in the official gazette El Peruano in July 2008 as reported by Peru's state news agency Andina. That is recognition as cultural heritage. It is not a statement that ayahuasca is legal.
Ayahuasca is not legal under United States federal law for the general public because it contains the Schedule I controlled substance DMT. Two federal rulings concern specific religious groups: Gonzales v. O Centro (2006) and the unpublished Church of the Holy Light of the Queen v. Holder memorandum (9th Cir., July 18, 2011).
This legal conclusion rests on the statutory text of 21 CFR 1308.11, the DEA December 2025 DMT fact sheet, the Supreme Court opinion in O Centro and an unpublished Ninth Circuit memorandum, state codes in Colorado (C.R.S. 44-50-103) and Oregon (ORS 475A), municipal resolution records from Oakland and Seattle, and an INCB report and Andina's news report on Peru's 2008 cultural-heritage declaration. This verdict rests on legal texts and agency documents only.
This verdict describes the general rule under federal law as of October 27, 2026, for people who are not covered by a court order such as the one in O Centro. Whether it applies to a particular person or organization is a question for a licensed attorney. The legal status would change if the DMT listing in 21 CFR 1308.11 is changed, or if a federal court grants RFRA relief to an additional claimant. A Colorado approval of DMT would change that state's regulated program under C.R.S. 44-50-103(13); the sources retrieved here do not say it would change federal law. In Colorado, the statute allows DMT to be added only if recommended by the advisory board and approved by state licensing directors on or after June 1, 2026. Anyone with questions regarding personal legal rights or pending charges should consult a licensed attorney, as explained further in our ayahuasca guide.
Ayahuasca is not legal for the general public in the United States. The federal government classifies N,N-dimethyltryptamine (DMT), an active compound in the brew, as a Schedule I controlled substance under 21 CFR 1308.11. Although the specific plants are not named in the federal scheduling list, the Controlled Substances Act prohibits any mixture or preparation containing DMT.
Yes, but they are limited to specific religious organizations that obtained court rulings under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). In Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal (2006), the Supreme Court held the Government had not carried its RFRA burden for that church's sincere sacramental use of hoasca and affirmed a preliminary injunction. An unpublished 2011 Ninth Circuit memorandum in Church of the Holy Light of the Queen v. Holder noted that the government did not challenge the district court's conclusion that a prohibition on importing Daime tea by that church violates RFRA, and it vacated the injunction as overbroad and remanded. These rulings do not grant general religious protection to other churches or individuals.
The plants Banisteriopsis caapi and Psychotria viridis are not listed by name in 21 CFR 1308.11. The sources retrieved here include no DEA statement on the plants themselves, so this page does not say whether either plant is lawful on its own. However, 21 CFR 1308.11 applies Schedule I controls to any material, compound, mixture, or preparation containing any quantity of DMT, and the DEA's December 2025 fact sheet says DMT is present in brewed concoctions like ayahuasca.
C.R.S. 44-50-103(13), as shown on colorado.public.law (retrieved October 27, 2026) defines natural medicine as psilocybin and psilocyn and does not name ayahuasca. It lets DMT be added if recommended by the board and approved on or after June 1, 2026. We did not verify whether that approval has happened. Synthetic analogs are excluded.
Oregon's licensed program covers psilocybin products and psilocybin services under ORS 475A. The ORS 475A.220 definitions do not name ayahuasca or DMT. Nothing in the sources says ayahuasca is lawful for any person; a licensed attorney decides what applies to a particular person.
Oakland's City Council adopted a resolution on June 4, 2019 (Legistar file 18-1790) directing that no city funds or resources be used to enforce criminal penalties for adult use and possession of entheogenic plants, and Seattle Resolution 32021 (October 2021) says entheogen-related activity should be among the city's lowest enforcement priorities. Neither changes state or federal law. These resolutions address city resources and local enforcement priorities and do not amend state or federal law.
The International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) states in its 2025 technical publications that plant and fungal preparations containing scheduled substances, including ayahuasca, are not under international control under the 1971 Convention on Psychotropic Substances. However, this treaty exclusion leaves individual countries free to enact stricter domestic bans, which the United States has done under the Controlled Substances Act.
Get psychedelic research & policy updates
New trials, FDA decisions, and legal changes for psychedelic — delivered when they happen.
Suggest a tool, topic, or improvement that would make this site more useful.