Jensen v. Utah County.
No. 25-4115. 10/5/2026. D.Utah. Judge Bacharach. Removal to Federal Court—Injunction Against State Criminal Proceedings—Religious Versus Secular Use of Psilocybin—First Amendment—Pendant Appellate Jurisdiction.
October 5, 2026
Jensen founded Singularism, a religion whose adherents, called voyagers, use the drug psilocybin, which is prohibited under Utah law. Utah authorities found out that the voyagers were using psilocybin and seized over 450 grams. Local police then wrote Singularism’s landlord to request eviction on the ground that psilocybin use constituted a nuisance. Jensen and Singularism then sued in state court, and the case was removed to federal district court. After the removal, the federal district court granted a temporary restraining order to Jensen and Singularism requiring the return of their records and psilocybin. A few days later, state authorities charged Jensen with drug crimes. Jensen moved for an injunction against the state criminal proceedings, which the federal court granted, enjoining state authorities from prosecuting Jensen to avoid a likely First Amendment violation.
On appeal, the state authorities argued that the district court should have abstained from granting the injunction, given the ongoing criminal proceedings in state court. Jensen and Singularism contended that the state authorities waived their abstention argument by not objecting to dismissal of the prosecution in state court, by removing the civil proceeding from state to federal court, and by pursuing the constitutional issues in the civil case after the removal. Here, the state authorities had no choice about the dismissal of the state court prosecution because the federal court had ordered them to stop prosecuting Jensen. Second, moving the civil case from state to federal court didn’t affect the court’s power to enjoin the criminal case. And third, the civil litigation did not undermine the state authorities’ efforts to force litigation of the constitutional issues in the state criminal case. Accordingly, the state authorities didn’t waive abstention by not objecting to the motion to dismiss the prosecution, by removing the civil action to federal court, or by proceeding in the federal litigation.
On the merits of the abstention argument, federal district courts must generally abstain from enjoining criminal prosecutions in state court. Exceptions to this general rule exist where a state official prosecutes in bad faith or to harass, or the prosecution threatens an irreparable injury. Jensen and Singularism argued that both exceptions apply here, citing a statement to the media, a threat to a landlord, and abusive tactics in this litigation. But even crediting these allegations, they would not suggest bad faith or harassment in the criminal case. Accordingly, Jensen and Singularism didn’t meet their heavy burden of proving bad faith or harassment in the criminal proceedings. Further, Jensen and Singularism did not show a threat of irreparable injury because Jensen could have asserted the constitutional claims in the state criminal case. The federal district court therefore should have abstained from enjoining the state criminal prosecution.
The state authorities challenged the injunction on grounds that the filing of criminal charges didn’t violate the First Amendment. Jensen and Singularism conceded that Utah’s psilocybin regulation is rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest, but they argued for a stricter standard on the ground that the law isn’t generally applicable, maintaining that Utah law improperly favors secular use of psilocybin even though it creates similar risks when used for religious and secular purposes. For this argument, Jensen and Singularism cited Utah Code § 58-37-309(1)–(2), which allows qualified healthcare systems to use psilocybin as an experimental treatment. However, given the state law and regulations and actual practice, Jensen and Singularism failed to show a similarity in health risks from secular and religious uses of psilocybin. The district court thus erred in finding a likely First Amendment violation. Jensen and Singularism also argued that the Utah law allows individualized exemptions, which would trigger strict scrutiny of the state law. But the district court didn’t decide this issue, and the Tenth Circuit decided the district court should resolve in the first instance.
The state authorities also challenged the denial of their motion to dismiss. Because the district court did not issue a final order, state authorities couldn’t ordinarily appeal the denial of the motion to dismiss. But as it did in deciding the injunction, the district court equated the risks for secular and religious uses of psilocybin in deciding the motion to dismiss. The Tenth Circuit exercised pendent appellate jurisdiction to review the decision not to dismiss the First Amendment claim, considering whether the district court was right in finding a likely First Amendment violation. As discussed above, the risks for secular and religious uses of psilocybin differ, so the district court shouldn’t have equated these risks when denying the motion to dismiss. But again, Jensen and Singularism contended that a system of individualized exemptions would trigger strict scrutiny of the state law. Given that remand is necessary on this issue, the Tenth Circuit could not exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction to consider dismissal of the First Amendment claim based on individualized exemptions.
The state authorities also asserted that the district court should have dismissed the Fourth Amendment claim, arguing that the issues involving the First and Fourth Amendments are intertwined. However, even if this is the case, pendent appellate jurisdiction would be inappropriate because the state authorities didn’t seek dismissal of the Fourth Amendment claim based on its relationship to the claim under the First Amendment, nor did the district court rely on the Fourth Amendment when enjoining the state criminal proceedings. So entry of the injunction isn’t inextricably intertwined with the appellate issue involving the Fourth Amendment. Nor is review of the Fourth Amendment issue necessary for meaningful review of the decision to grant the injunction.
The rulings were reversed and the case was remanded with instructions for the district court to vacate both the injunction against the state criminal proceedings and the denial of the motion to dismiss the First Amendment claim on the issue of preferential treatment for secular use. The appeal was dismissed as to the remaining rulings on the motion to dismiss, which addressed the existence of individualized exemptions under the First Amendment and the Fourth Amendment claim.