## Facts

- Judith H. Kuch was indicted in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on seven counts involving marijuana and LSD.
- Counts 1, 2, and 7 charged violations of the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 for unlawfully obtaining and transferring marijuana.
- Counts 3–6 charged violations of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Drug Abuse Control Amendments of 1965, for unlawful sale, delivery, and possession of LSD.
- Kuch claimed she was an ordained minister of the Neo-American Church and asserted that marijuana and LSD were used as sacraments.
- After a hearing, the court found the organization lacked a coherent theology, meaningful religious discipline, and evidence of belief in a supreme being, and appeared primarily oriented around drug use.
- Kuch moved pretrial to dismiss the indictment, asserting Free Exercise and equal protection arguments, including comparisons to tolerance of sacramental peyote use by the Native American Church.

## Issues

1. Whether the Neo-American Church’s claimed sacramental use of marijuana and LSD constituted religious exercise protected by the First Amendment, requiring dismissal of the indictment.
2. Whether applying the Marihuana Tax Act and the FDCA amendments to Kuch unconstitutionally burdened any protected religious exercise.
3. Whether differing treatment from peyote use associated with the Native American Church violated equal protection principles.

## Decision

- The court denied the motion to dismiss and allowed the prosecution to proceed on all counts.
- The court held the Neo-American Church did not qualify as a religion for First Amendment purposes because it lacked essential religious characteristics.
- The court further held that, even if the organization were treated as religious, the government’s interest in controlling dangerous drugs justified application of the statutes.
- The court rejected the equal protection argument, finding rational grounds for distinguishing historically rooted peyote use in the Native American Church from the Neo-American Church’s recent, drug-centered practices.

## Legal Principles

- A Free Exercise defense may be rejected where the asserted organization lacks objective indicia commonly associated with religion, including coherent doctrine and religious discipline.
- Even when religious exercise is assumed, generally applicable drug regulations may be enforced when supported by strong public health and safety interests.
- Legislatures may recognize narrow accommodations for specific contexts without being constitutionally required to extend identical exemptions to other groups; different treatment is permissible when rationally related to legitimate objectives.
- The Marihuana Tax Act was treated as a valid exercise of the taxing power despite regulatory effects, and the FDCA drug controls as a valid exercise of federal regulatory authority.

## Conclusion

The court refused to dismiss federal marijuana and LSD charges because the Neo-American Church was not a religion entitled to Free Exercise protection and because, even assuming religious status, the government’s interest in controlling dangerous drugs and protecting public health justified enforcing the statutes; differential treatment from peyote-related accommodations was upheld as rational.


United States v. Kuch, 288 F. Supp. 439 (D.D.C. 1968)