Iowaska Church of Healing Oral Argument: Wrong Party and Wrong Argument

Dadgummit, Iowaska Church of Healing is suing the wrong damn agency with the wrong damn argument and for that reason is losing the wrong damn case it ought to easily win.  And they are represented by Dentons, a white shoe law firm that ought to know better.  Good God, almighty!  Listening to the Iowaska Oral Argument is like watching a poorly coached football game. The team that ought to win easily is losing instead.  

But first, I owe Iowaska and its counsel an apology. When I first posted about this case, I made fun of the Hollywood stars who are suddenly religious adherents to the Ancient Sacrament of Ayahuasca.  At least that was my purpose — to satirize the fact the movie stars who probably have never been to South America except maybe to film a movie suddenly found N-Dimethyltryptamine (DMT) to be necessary to their own search for God.  N-Dimethyltryptamine is the “get high” found in the Ayahuasca leaf used in the religious sacrament.  Its a controlled substance.  So I understand why Iowaska applied for exemption even though organized worshippers don’t have to.  It feared criminal prosecution for its use of DMT in an otherwise legitimate religious ceremony.  I also understand why the Service denied them a determination letter — because DMT is illegal, barring an exemption from DEA.  DEA is required by the Constitution to issue the exemption, according to the Supremes.  But DEA is playing games.  Instead of suing DEA, Iowaska is suing the Service.  The Service is so confident of its position — “get the DEA exemption and we’ll give you the determination letter, no problem” — that it spent a total of 3 minutes on oral argument yesterday.  Three brief minutes, after which Kathy E. Lyon confidently asked, “any questions, judges?”  There were no questions.  You gotta be a real bad ass to ask a panel of judges whether they understand, I’m just saying.  

An exemption to use DMT must be obtained from DEA.  Iowaska applied for the exemption, to which they are clearly entitled, but DEA is giving them the serious runaround.  DEA is the culprit here, not IRS.  So after my initial post, I asked Dentons why they weren’t suing DEA.  But my post made it seem like I was making fun of a South American religious ceremony —  one as old as any found in the Christian religion, I expect.  My mother has no filter and sometimes I am just like her.  So when I wrote to Bill Boatwright at Dentons to ask why Iowaksa isn’t suing DEA for its obvious foot dragging, he said:

There were a number of practical reasons that went into the decision to not name DEA as an additional party.  Had your initial piece not been insulting and uninformed, I may have been willing to share them with you.  If you carefully read all of the briefings in the case, I think some of your questions will be answered.

Ok, fair enough.  I’m sorry.  But Iowaska is making a mess out of what should be an easy win.  First, its suing the wrong party.  Dentons almost concedes that much in its hapless oral argument.  Its DEA not IRS violating Iowaska’s constitutional right to the free exercise of religion.  Second, Iowaska is fighting against the wrong precedent.  Iowaska’s oral argument focused on whether Bob Jones public policy precludes the IRS from recognizing tax exemption to which Iowaska is presumptively entitled.  Bob Jones ain’t got nothing to do with this.  Its the illegality doctrine, stupid.  DMT is clearly illegal until DEA grants an exception clearly mandated by the Supremes and DEA is clearly bucking the Supremes by not issuing a license, all to Iowaska’s constitutional detriment.  Clearly!  

Anyway, expect a PCA affirming that Iowaska’s lacks standing because its suing the wrong damn party and citing the wrong damn case.  

darryll k. jones