10th Circuit Overturned Utah Prosecution Injunction
The federal court ruled that state criminal proceedings against Bridger Jensen may now proceed.
Updated on Oct. 6, 2026 in Criminal Justice
Live Poll
Should religious freedom protect the use of drugs that are otherwise illegal under state law?
The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals has overturned a federal injunction that had blocked the state of Utah from prosecuting Bridger Jensen. The ruling allows the criminal case to move forward after a lower court previously halted proceedings.
Why it matters
The decision affirms that states maintain the authority to prosecute drug-related offenses even when religious practices are cited as a defense. It reinforces the principle that federal courts should generally abstain from interfering in active state criminal matters.
The 10th Circuit applied the Younger abstention doctrine to vacate a 2025 injunction. Prosecutors have not refiled charges against Bridger Jensen as of October 5, 2026.
The players
Bridger Jensen
He is the individual facing state criminal proceedings in Utah County following the seizure of psilocybin at a local center.
Jill Parrish
She is the U.S. District Judge who initially issued the 2025 injunction that blocked the state from pursuing its criminal case.
10th Circuit
This federal appellate court oversees cases in Utah and issued the ruling directing that state proceedings may continue.
The details
The appellate court determined that the burden of proof required to demonstrate bad faith by state prosecutors was not met. While the injunction was overturned, the court remanded Jensen's Religious Freedom Restoration Act claim back to the lower court for further resolution.
Timeline
Police raided the Singularism center and seized psilocybin in 2024.
U.S. District Judge Jill Parrish blocked state criminal proceedings in 2025.
The 10th Circuit issued the ruling on October 5, 2026.
Legal Context
The ruling aligns with the Younger abstention doctrine, which limits federal interference in active state criminal proceedings. This approach mirrors historical precedents where federal courts have deferred to state-level enforcement of drug statutes over religious practice claims.
Residents should understand that the ruling prevents federal interference in local criminal prosecutions of this nature. The decision clarifies that state-level drug enforcement priorities currently outweigh religious exemptions in the 10th Circuit's interpretation.
The takeaway
The court's decision underscores the difficulty of using religious belief to bypass state drug laws in the current legal climate. This case serves as a reminder that state prosecution strategies remain largely insulated from federal judicial challenges under current abstention standards.
What happens next
The lower court is expected to resolve the pending claim under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
Further reading
Learn more about the state's legal proceedings in the Criminal Justice section.
Source note: This article includes information reported by Court House News Service.
Live Poll
Should religious freedom protect the use of drugs that are otherwise illegal under state law?
