Inside the Church of Gaia’s DEA exemption: 5 Questions for attorney Taylor Loyden

Loyden discusses the process of applying for and receiving The Church of Gaia’s exemption.

Taylor Loyden was a backcountry guide in Alaska when she began noticing the cascading effects of climate change across the natural world: as glaciers melted, the rivers they once fed warmed and slowed, decimating salmon populations and leaving bears emaciated. It was exhausting to witness and so was the itinerant lifestyle of guiding, so Loyden went to law school with the idea that she’d practice environmental law.

But when COVID hit, Loyden became disillusioned with law, too. “It’s rigid, it’s patriarchal, it’s racist, and it really wasn’t aligning for me,” Loyden says. At the time, she had a lot of friends working in the psychedelic underground, and had tried various substances herself. She grew interested in psychedelic law and met Pat Donahue, founder of Terrapin Legal, a psychedelic law firm, and they began working together.

Most recently, Terrapin has represented the Church of Gaia, an ayahuasca church in Spokane, Washington, whose members take ayahuasca as sacrament. While psychedelic churches, like other churches in the U.S., have the right to their religious practices, serving psychedelics remains federally illegal per the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). In the mid-2000s, two ayahuasca churches, the Santo Daime and the União do Vegetal, received exemptions to the CSA after filing lawsuits against the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, claiming that the CSA creates undue burden on their ability to practice their religion, a right guaranteed under the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Recently, several other churches, like Arizona’s the Church of the Eagle and the Condor and California’s Church of the Celestial Heart, have also sued and settled with the DEA for similar exemptions.

But one additional avenue exists for churches seeking legal recognition of their right to use psychedelics in their religious practices: they can petition the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration for an exemption to the CSA. The Church of Gaia is the first psychedelic church to receive an exemption through the DEA’s exemption petition process without bringing a lawsuit. The Microdose spoke with Loyden about the process of applying for and receiving The Church of Gaia’s exemption.

How did this DEA exemption process begin, and what was the timeline to receiving approval?

The Church of Gaia actually filed for that exemption in September 2022. In January 2023, the DEA replied asking for more info and for a site visit, so the church decided to get lawyers involved. The inspection was in February 2023 and went well, but then after that, there were months of back and forth of follow-up questions. We had a main diversion investigator assigned to our case, and they would be the go between for questions between DEA headquarters and us. Sometimes they were requests for answers we’d already provided; other times, they asked for things like the exact coordinates of where we’d be holding ceremonies. We’d send our responses back to our investigator within a few days to a week, but it would take months to hear back from DEA headquarters. The investigator was incredibly responsive and as transparent as she could be, but the real slowdown was from HQ.

We were pulling our hair out waiting, and even began looking at alternate strategies — like a potential lawsuit. The church wasn’t practicing during this period because it was really important to them that they did things by the book; they wanted to adhere to a very high ethical standard. They still had an active community with gatherings, but no ayahuasca was served.

Finally, on October 8, 2024, we heard that the exemption would be granted and they sent us over a memorandum of agreement outlining the terms. I remember that date because it was my birthday! But after that it took another few months to agree on terms and get the documents signed.

What was the site visit like, how was it like collaborating with DEA agents?

Going into it, we discussed our strategy. A big thing for us is that the DEA has no business in determining what constitutes a religion, and whether those practices are sincere, absent evidence of strong commercial activity. So when we agreed to a site visit we said we’re going to sit and have a chat with you, but the only things we’re going to permit you to inquire into are questions about public health and safety, and anti-diversion.

The site visit involved me, Pat, our paralegal, and two DEA agents. Pat also had defense attorneys lined up for us just in case, since we didn’t know what was going to happen. We assumed it would all be fine, but as lawyers, we’re always going to have our back ends covered as well.

Of the two investigators, one was our primary contact and the other was in more of a supportive role. They both made a very sincere and intentional approach to try to understand what was going on, and to make sure that they were communicating and asking questions respectfully, and we had really good conversations; it was actually a very positive experience. One of the things they said in the beginning was, “We understand there are different names for this - we’d like to ask, is it Daime, or hoaska, ayahuasca, or grandmother?” They wanted to know how to be most respectful.

Subscribe for more interviews and our weekly news roundup. (P.S. It’s free!)

Many other psychedelic churches have asserted their right to religious practice through practice — taking more of a “ask for forgiveness, not permission” approach if the federal government intervenes. But the Church of Gaia took the opposite tack, choosing not to practice until securing an exemption. Was there any indication that the DEA liked the church’s approach of doing things by the book?

It's hard to say what the DEA wants and doesn't want. Based on case law and discussions I've had with others, the DEA’s argument is that an organization should submit a petition first — which is hysterical given the number of petitions that have been submitted without any response.

There’s been lots of criticism of the DEA’s petition process; churches have sued after waiting years for a response from the agency, and a recent report from the Government Accountability Office calls for the DEA to actually enforce their own policies and to be more transparent. After having gone through the process, what do you see as the main challenges to a more transparent and functional petition system?

I've had a lot of conversations with attorneys in this space and there are other organizations who are in various stages of the petition process. I think that while streamlining this petition process is something that the DEA is legally obligated to do, they don't necessarily have the framework to really do it. I mean, this is the Drug Enforcement Administration: they're here to regulate and control. The DEA needs forms. It wants things filed in triplicate. It wants boxes checked. But what we’re doing is relational; the idea of entheogenic spirituality defies that whole ethos. I think in many cases they genuinely don't know what to do and they don't have the internal structures or tools to figure out how to do it.

For instance, I’ve chatted with individuals who have been engaged with the DEA and they’ve told me things that the DEA has been asking or requiring of them and I'm like, “They've done what now?” For example, brewing ayahuasca technically falls under the DEA’s manufacturing process, so they want to know exactly how much Banisteriopsis caapi goes into it and what exactly is the ratio of ingredients yielding how many milliliters, and it all needs to be in this jar whose label can be read from an arm’s length away. Regulating works for research and medical purposes, but for religious use, brewing ayahuasca is a ritual — there’s song, prayer, intention.

Another example: the DEA has asked about processes for destroying unused material, like if it’s not fit for consumption for any reason. That works if you’re a researcher making COVID doses or something, but we would not destroy something sacred. So we decided that our policy could be that we will not destroy it, but we will return it to the earth in a ceremonial burial and record it. The DEA was like, ok, great, we can check our box now.

What else did you learn from this process that might be useful to other churches?

One reason this petition was successful was because it was done so by the book. I always advise clients to have their ducks in a row: have your practices reviewed and make sure your policies and procedures address any public health or safety concerns, and that you have internal operational protocols in place. At the time when we were considering suing, we knew we’d have an airtight case because everything was done according to policy.

But even then, it’s still easy for the DEA to keep punting things around because they have no internal policy. I mean, I’ve heard from other people who have tried to go through this process who have been punted around to like six different diversion investigators and have to start over each time. Until we get updated rules that are clear and transparent, it will probably remain their preference for churches to file petitions so they have the discretion to say no.

This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity and length.