The Tenth Circuit's October 5, 2026 opinion vacating the injunction that had blocked Utah's prosecution of Singularism founder Bridger Jensen, and what remains open.
The Tenth Circuit ruled on October 5, 2026, that a federal judge should not have stopped Utah's criminal prosecution of Bridger Lee Jensen, who founded Singularism, a religion whose ceremony includes psilocybin. In its published opinion in Jensen v. Utah County, No. 25-4115, the panel reversed and remanded with instructions to vacate the injunction. Courthouse News Service reported the same outcome in the Singularism Utah case.
Judge Bacharach wrote the opinion for a panel that also included Judges Ebel and Federico. The panel framed two questions and answered no to both. It asked whether a federal court could enjoin the state prosecution of a religious leader, and whether Utah violates free exercise by letting qualified healthcare systems use psilocybin experimentally while barring religious use without medical oversight.
The Tenth Circuit reversed the order that had barred Utah County and Utah County Attorney Jeffrey Gray from prosecuting Bridger Lee Jensen, and it sent the case back with instructions. The district court must vacate its injunction against the state criminal proceedings. It must also vacate its denial of the motion to dismiss the First Amendment claim on the issue of preferential treatment for secular use.
On the first question, the panel held that federal courts must ordinarily stay out of state criminal prosecutions under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). On the second question, it held that Utah law does not treat secular activity more favorably than comparable religious activity. The district court therefore erred in finding a likely First Amendment violation.
The panel did not rule on every issue the defendants raised. It dismissed the appeal of two rulings on the motion to dismiss for lack of appellate jurisdiction: one on whether the law invites individualized exemptions, and one on the Fourth Amendment claim. The district court will decide the individualized-exemptions issue in the first instance.
Bridger Lee Jensen founded Singularism, whose adherents are called voyagers and take part in a religious ceremony that includes psilocybin. Utah law prohibits psilocybin under Utah Code 76-18-207(2) and 58-37-108(2)(a)(iii)(Y). Authorities learned of the use and seized more than 450 grams.
Two days after the seizure, local police wrote to the landlord asking for an eviction on a nuisance ground. Within a week, Jensen and Singularism sued in state court. The case was then removed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, under case number 2:24-CV-00887-JNP-CMR.
After removal, the district court granted a temporary restraining order (TRO) requiring the return of their records and psilocybin. Days later, state authorities charged Jensen with drug crimes, in a prosecution brought by County Attorney Gray for the State of Utah.
Jensen then asked the district court to enjoin the state criminal proceedings. The district court granted that request, barring Utah County and Gray from prosecuting him to avoid a likely First Amendment violation. Jensen and Singularism pointed to 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 28 U.S.C. 1446(d) as federal authorization for the injunction, and the panel relied on section 1983 without resolving the other.
The parties on appeal were Jensen, Singularism, and Psyche Healing and Bridging as plaintiffs-appellees. Utah County, Provo City, and Jeffrey Gray were the defendants-appellants.
A federal court must ordinarily abstain from interfering with a criminal prosecution in state court, under the rule set in Younger v. Harris. Abstention is generally required when a criminal proceeding is ongoing in state court, the state court provides an adequate forum, and the proceedings involve important state interests. Both sides agreed that all three conditions were satisfied in Jensen's case.
The plaintiffs argued instead that the state authorities had waived abstention. The panel rejected that argument. The authorities' silence about dismissal in state court was not a waiver, because the federal court had ordered them to stop prosecuting.
The panel also held that removing the civil case to federal court did not waive abstention for the separate criminal case.
The plaintiffs further argued that the case fit the exceptions for bad faith, harassment and irreparable injury. The panel found that none of those had been shown. With no waiver and no exception, the general rule applied, and the district court should not have enjoined the prosecution.
Under Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990), a law that is both neutral and generally applicable need only be rationally related to a legitimate government interest. The plaintiffs conceded that Utah's regulation of psilocybin meets that rational-basis test. They also did not contest that the law is neutral.
Their argument rested on general applicability. Under Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, 593 U.S. 522 (2021), a law is not generally applicable if it prohibits religious conduct while permitting secular conduct that undermines the government's interest in a similar way. A law also fails that test if it invites individualized exemptions.
The plaintiffs argued that Utah favors secular use through the hospital psilocybin program under Utah Code 58-37-309. They also argued that the law invites individualized exemptions. The panel ruled only on the first argument.
The panel looked at the hospital program's structure and implementation. A healthcare system must qualify, for example by being privately owned, non-profit and vertically integrated while operating at least 15 licensed hospitals in Utah. A system closely affiliated with listed higher-education institutions can also qualify.
A qualifying system may use psilocybin only under the direct supervision and control of the healthcare system and its licensed providers. It must file written reports, and its hospitals follow pharmaceutical and psychiatric-services standards. Utah law has no comparable statutory or regulatory protections for religious use.
From those differences, the panel concluded that secular and religious use pose different risks. Utah law therefore does not treat secular activity more favorably than comparable religious activity. That conclusion removed the basis for the district court's finding of a likely First Amendment violation.
Several parts of the Jensen dispute remain open after the Tenth Circuit's opinion. The district court must decide in the first instance whether Utah's psilocybin law invites individualized exemptions, which is the second general-applicability argument under Fulton. The Fourth Amendment claim also stays with the district court, because the panel dismissed that part of the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
The district court also granted a separate preliminary injunction under the Utah Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). That order requires the return of items seized in the search and prohibits interference with Singularism's religious use of psilocybin. The state authorities did not appeal it or address the Utah RFRA claims, so the Tenth Circuit expressed no opinion on its validity.
With the injunction against the criminal proceedings vacated, the state prosecution of Jensen may proceed. The opinion is not a final judgment on the merits of the First Amendment claim. It decided whether the injunction could stand and reviewed one ruling on the motion to dismiss.
The Jensen ruling does not make psilocybin legal for religious use anywhere, and it does not make religious use illegal anywhere. It did not decide any Utah RFRA claim. The general background on religious-use statutes is in the RFRA and psychedelics explainer.
Jensen v. Utah County is a published Tenth Circuit opinion. It is binding precedent in the federal courts of Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming. Outcomes in religious-use cases depend on the facts of each case.
For the federal schedule, read the Controlled Substances Act explainer, and for state law, use the legal status by state tool. See also the O Centro ayahuasca case page.
To track the Singularism Utah case from here, read the full Tenth Circuit opinion. For Utah's separate hospital pilot law, see the Utah psychedelic pilot page.
The Tenth Circuit ruled on October 5, 2026, that the federal district court in Utah should not have blocked the state prosecution of Singularism founder Bridger Lee Jensen. It held that the district court should have abstained under Younger v. Harris and that it erred in finding a likely First Amendment violation. The panel reversed and remanded with instructions to vacate the injunction.
Younger abstention is the rule, from Younger v. Harris (1971), that a federal court must ordinarily not interfere with a criminal prosecution in state court. It generally applies when a state criminal proceeding is ongoing, the state court offers an adequate forum, and the case involves important state interests. In the Jensen case, both sides agreed those conditions were met, and the panel found no bad faith, harassment or irreparable injury that would justify an exception.
No. The Tenth Circuit did not decide whether religious psilocybin use is legal or illegal, and it did not rule on any Utah RFRA claim. It held that the district court should not have enjoined the state prosecution and erred in finding a likely First Amendment violation based on preferential treatment for secular use.
The Tenth Circuit instructed the district court to vacate the injunction that had stopped the state criminal proceedings, so the prosecution may proceed. Utah County Attorney Jeffrey Gray brought the charges for the State of Utah. The opinion does not address how the criminal charges should be resolved.
The Utah RFRA claim was not before the Tenth Circuit. The district court had relied on the Utah Religious Freedom Restoration Act to grant a preliminary injunction requiring the return of seized items and barring interference with Singularism's religious use of psilocybin. The state authorities did not appeal that order, so the Tenth Circuit expressed no opinion on its validity.
Jensen v. Utah County is a published Tenth Circuit opinion, so it is binding precedent in the federal courts of Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming. It does not change any state's psilocybin law. Results in other cases depend on their own facts.
Get Jensen v. Utah County (Singularism) updates
New votes, rules, court rulings, and access changes for Jensen v. Utah County (Singularism) — delivered when they happen.
← Back to all psychedelic laws
Suggest a tool, topic, or improvement that would make this site more useful.