Court Opinion

ID: 9945370
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-27 19:02:07.320967+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:27.816064
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-11052   Document: 30-1    Date Filed: 02/27/2024   Page: 1 of 12

                                              [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                 In the
                 United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                         ____________________

                               No. 22-11052
                         Non-Argument Calendar
                         ____________________

        SOUL QUEST CHURCH OF MOTHER EARTH,
        INC.,
        CHRISTOPHER YOUNG,
                                                           Petitioners,
        versus
        U.S. DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION,
        U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
        ACTING ADMINISTRATOR OF THE U.S. DRUG
        ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION,

                                                         Respondents.

                         ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-11052         Document: 30-1        Date Filed: 02/27/2024         Page: 2 of 12

        2                         Opinion of the Court                       22-11052

        Before JORDAN, JILL PRYOR, and BRANCH, Circuit Judges.
        PER CURIAM:
               Soul Quest Church of Mother Earth, Inc. (“Soul Quest”) 1
        seeks review of the Drug Enforcement Administration’s (“DEA”)2
        final decision denying it a religious exemption to the Controlled
        Substances Act (“CSA”). The DEA moved to dismiss the petition,
        arguing that it was untimely. We agree with the DEA. After careful
        review, we grant the DEA’s motion and dismiss Soul Quest’s peti-
        tion.
                                 I.          BACKGROUND
                We laid out the facts relevant to Soul Quest’s failed petition
        for a religious exemption to the CSA in a recent opinion, Soul Quest
        Church of Mother Earth, Inc. v. Attorney General (Soul Quest I), __ F.4th
        __, No. 22-11072, 2023 WL 8714320 (11th Cir. Dec. 18, 2023). Thus,
        we discuss only the facts relevant to this appeal.

        1 Soul Quest petitioned for review joined by Christopher Young, its spiritual
        leader. For simplicity’s sake, we refer to the petitioners collectively as “Soul
        Quest.”
        2 Soul Quest named as respondents to its petition the DEA, the Administrator
        of the DEA, and the Attorney General of the United States. For simplicity’s
        sake, we refer to respondents collectively as the “DEA.”
USCA11 Case: 22-11052        Document: 30-1           Date Filed: 02/27/2024    Page: 3 of 12

        22-11052                  Opinion of the Court                             3

           A. Soul Quest’s Petition for a Religious Exemption and Its
              Lawsuit in District Court

                On August 21, 2017, Soul Quest, through its attorney, peti-
        tioned the DEA for a religious exemption to the CSA. The petition
        sought an exemption to the CSA “specifically as it pertain[ed] to
        the ritual use by Soul Quest of ayahuasca for its sacramental activ-
        ities.” AR at 51. 3
                The DEA initially did not respond to Soul Quest’s petition.
        After three years with no response, Soul Quest filed an action in
        district court, claiming that the DEA’s failure to respond to its pe-
        tition violated its right to the free exercise of religion and its rights
        under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”).4 The law-
        suit apparently caught the DEA’s attention, because the agency
        soon communicated with Soul Quest confirming receipt of the re-
        ligious exemption petition. Following negotiations with Soul
        Quest, the DEA conducted the investigation necessary to evaluate
        Soul Quest’s religious exemption request.
              Finally, on April 16, 2021, the DEA sent a Soul Quest a letter
        denying its petition for a religious exemption to the CSA. In the

        3 “AR” refers to the administrative record.
        4 As we summarized in Soul Quest I, “RFRA prohibits a federal agency like the
        DEA from burdening an individual’s free exercise of sincerely-held religious
        beliefs unless the agency can show that the burden advances a compelling gov-
        ernmental interest and is carried out with the least restrictive means.” 2023
        WL 8714320, at *1 (citing 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-l(b)).
USCA11 Case: 22-11052         Document: 30-1         Date Filed: 02/27/2024         Page: 4 of 12

        4                          Opinion of the Court                       22-11052

        letter, the DEA explained that the church had not met its burden
        under RFRA to show that its members’ beliefs were sincerely held
        and that its use of ayahuasca was part of a religious exercise. In ad-
        dition, the DEA found compelling governmental interests in main-
        taining public safety and preventing diversion of the controlled
        substance into improper channels. And it found that the CSA’s pro-
        hibitions furthered those compelling interests with the least restric-
        tive means. The letter concluded “[t]his letter is a final determina-
        tion under 21 U.S.C. § 877.” Id. at 9.
               Instead of filing a new action, Soul Quest sought review of
        the DEA’s denial by amending its complaint pending in district
        court. In the amended complaint, Soul Quest challenged the merits
        of the DEA’s final decision. The district court dismissed the action
        for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, relying on 21 U.S.C. § 877,
        which requires a party aggrieved by a final decision made under the
        CSA’s Control and Enforcement subchapter to obtain judicial re-
        view from an appropriate federal circuit court of appeals—not a
        federal district court. 5
            B. Procedural History

               After the district court ruled, Soul Quest filed this petition
        for review of the DEA’s decision in this Court on April 4, 2022.
        Among other claims, Soul Quest asserted that the DEA exceeded

        5 Soul Quest timely appealed the district court’s dismissal on the same day it
        filed this petition for review. In Soul Quest I, we affirmed the district court’s
        dismissal. 2023 WL 8714320, at *16.
USCA11 Case: 22-11052        Document: 30-1        Date Filed: 02/27/2024        Page: 5 of 12

        22-11052                  Opinion of the Court                              5

        its authority and violated Soul Quest’s constitutional rights by
        denying the exemption based on the agency’s evaluation of the
        church’s religious beliefs. Soul Quest also challenged the DEA’s re-
        ligious exemption petition process as “arbitrary and capricious” in
        violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). Pet. for
        Rev. 7–8. It requested that we “hold unlawful, vacate, and enjoin
        the [DEA’s] final agency decision” and mandate that the DEA “ex-
        peditiously issue the requested religious exemption.” 6 Id. at 10–11.
                The DEA moved to dismiss Soul Quest’s petition for review
        as untimely. The agency argues in its motion that its April 16, 2021
        letter denying Soul Quest’s petition for a religious exemption was
        a final decision, after notice of which Soul Quest had 30 days to
        petition for review. Therefore, the agency contends, Soul Quest far
        exceeded this time limit by petitioning this Court on April 4, 2022.
               We now consider the DEA’s motion to dismiss.
                                  II.         DISCUSSION
               The issue before us is whether Soul Quest’s petition for re-
        view is timely. Both parties agree that the timeliness of the petition
        depends on when—and whether—the DEA’s decision denying
        Soul Quest a religious exemption became final.

        6 Both parties briefed the merits of Soul Quest’s petition. Because we decide
        that Soul Quest’s petition for review was untimely, and therefore dismiss the
        petition, we do not reach the merits of Soul Quest’s claims and do not discuss
        them further.
USCA11 Case: 22-11052         Document: 30-1        Date Filed: 02/27/2024         Page: 6 of 12

        6                         Opinion of the Court                       22-11052

              In Soul Quest I, we held that the DEA’s decision denying Soul
        Quest a religious exemption was made under the CSA’s Control
        and Enforcement subchapter and was therefore subject to 21
        U.S.C. § 877. 2023 WL 8714320, at *12. Section 877 governs judicial
        review of “final” decisions made under the subchapter. It provides
        that:
               any person aggrieved by a ﬁnal decision of the Attor-
               ney General may obtain review of the decision in the
               United States Court of Appeals for the District of Co-
               lumbia or for the circuit in which his principal place
               of business is located upon petition ﬁled with the
               court and delivered to the Attorney General within
               thirty days after notice of the decision.

        21 U.S.C. § 877. 7
              To determine whether a DEA decision is final under § 877,
        other circuits have applied the test articulated in Bennett v. Spear,
        520 U.S. 154 (1997). See Advanced Integrative Med. Sci. Inst., PLLC v.
        Garland, 24 F.4th 1249, 1256–58 (9th Cir. 2022); John Doe, Inc. v.
        DEA, 484 F.3d 561, 566 & n.4 (D.C. Cir. 2007). Bennett interpreted
        the meaning of “final” agency action in the context of the APA and

        7 Although § 877 refers to final decisions of the Attorney General, the Attorney
        General has delegated his decision-making authority under the CSA to the
        DEA Administrator, except in specific circumstances. See 28 C.F.R. § 0.100(b).
        Here, the Attorney General has delegated to the DEA Administrator the au-
        thority to decide whether to grant a religious exemption to the CSA. See id.;
        Soul Quest I, 2023 WL 8714320, at *15 (noting that the CSA authorized the DEA
        to decide Soul Quest’s petition for a religious exemption).
USCA11 Case: 22-11052      Document: 30-1      Date Filed: 02/27/2024     Page: 7 of 12

        22-11052               Opinion of the Court                         7

        held that “[a]s a general matter, two conditions must be satisfied
        for agency action to be ‘final.’” 520 U.S. at 177. First, “the action
        must mark the consummation of the agency’s decisionmaking pro-
        cess” and “must not be of a merely tentative or interlocutory na-
        ture.” Id. at 177–78 (internal quotation marks omitted). Second,
        “the action must be one by which rights or obligations have been
        determined, or from which legal consequences will flow.” Id. at 178
        (internal quotation marks omitted).
               We are persuaded by the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning, in ap-
        plying Bennett, that the word “final” in § 877 is “analytically equiv-
        alent to the meaning of the same word in the APA.” Advanced Inte-
        grative Med. Sci. Inst., 24 F.4th at 1257 (internal quotation marks
        omitted). This reasoning honors the related-statutes canon of stat-
        utory construction, which says that statutes on the same subject
        should be interpreted harmoniously. See Antonin Scalia & Bryan A.
        Garner, Reading Law 252–53 (2012). We followed this rule our-
        selves in a recent case, in which we cited Bennett in support of our
        conclusion that an FCC action was final under the Hobbs Act, 28
        USC § 2342(1). Consumers’ Rsch., Caused Based Com., Inc., 88 F.4th
        917, 922–23 (11th Cir. 2023). To harmonize our interpretation of
        the finality of agency action across statutes, we apply the Bennett
        conditions to assess finality under § 877, too.
                Applying the Bennett conditions to the DEA’s April 16, 2021
        letter denying Soul Quest’s petition for a religious exemption, we
        conclude that it was a final decision. First, the decision marked the
        consummation of a months-long process during which the DEA
USCA11 Case: 22-11052          Document: 30-1         Date Filed: 02/27/2024          Page: 8 of 12

        8                          Opinion of the Court                         22-11052

        evaluated Soul Quest’s desired use of ayahuasca. And the decision
        was not tentative or interlocutory: it finally disposed of Soul
        Quest’s petition for a religious exemption. Second, the decision de-
        finitively determined Soul Quest’s rights: it affirmatively denied
        Soul Quest the right to use ayahuasca legally. See John Doe, Inc., 484
        F.3d at 566–67 (concluding that DEA’s denial of importation permit
        was final action that clearly determined permit-seeker’s rights).
        Both Bennett conditions were met when the DEA’s decision was
        transmitted to Soul Quest on April 16, 2021; thus, the decision was
        final on that date.
                We turn now to when the petition was due. Section 877 af-
        fords petitioners “thirty days after notice” of a final decision to pe-
        tition for review. 8 21 U.S.C. § 877. We must, therefore, determine
        when Soul Quest received notice of the DEA’s denial. Soul Quest
        previously acknowledged that it received the DEA’s decision letter
        on the same day it was sent, April 16, 2021. But even if we do not
        hold Soul Quest to its acknowledgment, it undoubtedly was aware

        8 The DEA argues that this time limit is jurisdictional and thus admits of no
        equitable exception. But we have recognized that another statute establishing
        the deadline for petitioning for review of a final agency decision was not juris-
        dictional. See Corbett v. Transp. Sec. Admin., 767 F.3d 1171, 1178 (11th Cir. 2014)
        (concluding that 60-day deadline to petition for review of Transportation Se-
        curity Administration decision was not jurisdictional). Nevertheless, we need
        not decide whether § 877’s time limit is jurisdictional because, as we explain
        below, even assuming that the time limit is not jurisdictional and thus subject
        to equitable tolling, Soul Quest has established no basis for equitable tolling
        here.
USCA11 Case: 22-11052      Document: 30-1      Date Filed: 02/27/2024     Page: 9 of 12

        22-11052               Opinion of the Court                         9

        of the decision by May 7, 2021, when it attached the DEA’s letter
        to a district court filing.
                Soul Quest’s petition was due no later than 30 days after May
        7, 2021—June 6, 2021. Thus, Soul Quest well exceeded the deadline
        for filing its petition for review—by roughly 10 months—when it
        petitioned this Court in April 2022. We conclude that the petition
        is untimely and ripe for dismissal.
                Soul Quest nonetheless advances two arguments why its pe-
        tition for review was timely. First, it argues that the DEA’s decision
        became final only when the district court dismissed its third-
        amended complaint. Accepting this as the date of the final decision
        would render Soul Quest’s petition for review timely. Second, Soul
        Quest argues that the DEA lacks the authority to make a final de-
        cision on a petition for a religious exemption; thus, there could be
        no final decision. We discuss each of Soul Quest’s arguments in
        turn.
                First, Soul Quest argues that the DEA’s denial of its petition
        for a religious exemption was not final until March 4, 2022, the day
        the district court dismissed the church’s pending challenges to the
        decision. Because the district court case was still pending when the
        DEA issued its decision letter, Soul Quest asserts, Soul Quest’s legal
        rights and obligations were not finally determined until the case’s
        dismissal.
               We reject this argument. As an initial matter, the operative
        decision from which § 877’s time limit runs is “a final decision of
        the [DEA],” not any subsequent challenge to that decision. 21
USCA11 Case: 22-11052        Document: 30-1         Date Filed: 02/27/2024         Page: 10 of 12

        10                         Opinion of the Court                       22-11052

        U.S.C. § 877. The finality of an agency decision is assessed when
        the decision was issued and does not change as the result of judicial
        review. See Biden v. Texas, 597 U.S. 785, 808–10 (2022); Data Market-
        ing P’ship, LP v. U.S. Dep’t of Lab. 45 F.4th 846, 854 (5th Cir. 2022)
        (“An [agency] action is either final or not.”). And we have already
        concluded that the DEA’s decision was final. Even if Soul Quest’s
        district court challenge had been successful and the court had al-
        lowed the church to use ayahuasca, the DEA’s April 16, 2021 letter
        still would have been the final decision for purposes of a petition
        for review under 21 U.S.C. § 877.
               In addition, there is no equitable reason to toll the time limit
        to accommodate Soul Quest’s foray into district court. We have
        said that “dogged prosecution of [a] petition in the district court is
        not a reasonable ground to excuse [a] failure to file [a] petition on
        time in this Court.” Corbett v. Transp. Sec. Admin., 767 F.3d 1171,
        1178–79 (2014). Soul Quest chose to pursue its claims in district
        court and wait to file this petition for review until after the district
        court dismissed its case. 9 When a petitioner chooses this course of
        action, we generally do not excuse delay based on a

        9 We note that Soul Quest disputes the DEA’s contention that it “knowingly
        and intentionally chose to pursue a district court civil action in lieu of timely
        petitioning for review under 21 U.S.C. § 877.” Resp. to Mot. to Dismiss 12 (in-
        ternal quotation marks omitted). But what Soul Quest admits to doing is not
        meaningfully different. The church acknowledges that it waited until the dis-
        trict court ruled before filing the instant petition for review, erroneously rea-
        soning that the DEA’s decision was not final until then. Whatever Soul Quest’s
        reasons for waiting to file the petition, its conscious choice caused the delay.
USCA11 Case: 22-11052      Document: 30-1      Date Filed: 02/27/2024     Page: 11 of 12

        22-11052               Opinion of the Court                         11

        “misapprehension of the law” unless the petitioner claims that the
        agency caused its confusion. Id. at 1179 (internal quotation marks
        omitted). Soul Quest has not argued any such confusion here. We
        cannot toll § 877’s time limit for Soul Quest’s “quixotic pursuit of
        the wrong remed[y].” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
               Second, Soul Quest argues that the DEA lacked the author-
        ity to make a final decision on its petition for a religious exemption,
        and, therefore, the DEA’s decision was not final. We reject this ar-
        gument, too. Although Soul Quest styles this argument as one re-
        garding finality, it in fact addresses the merits of the DEA’s deci-
        sion. The conditions that we consider when determining whether
        an agency decision is final, discussed above, do not include the
        agency’s authority to make the decision.
                To the extent we consider Soul Quest’s argument that the
        DEA exceeded its authority, we conclude that it is foreclosed by
        Soul Quest I, in which we determined that the DEA’s decision was
        “well within” the agency’s authority. 2023 WL 8714320, at *12; see
        also id. at *15 (“[T]he DEA’s authority to decide Soul Quest’s peti-
        tion for a religious exemption came from the CSA because the CSA
        is the source of the DEA’s authority both to prohibit Soul Quest
        from handling ayahuasca and to allow it to do so under the CSA’s
        registration provisions.”).
              The DEA’s denial of Soul Quest’s petition for a religious ex-
        emption to the CSA became final no later than April 16, 2021. Be-
        cause Soul Quest failed to petition for review within 30 days after
USCA11 Case: 22-11052          Document: 30-1          Date Filed: 02/27/2024           Page: 12 of 12

        12                          Opinion of the Court                          22-11052

        it received notice of that decision, its petition was untimely. We
        therefore grant the DEA’s motion to dismiss. 10
                                      III.    CONCLUSION

              The DEA’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED, and this appeal
        is DISMISSED.

        10 Soul Quest has asked that, if we find its petition untimely, we transfer the
        petition to another court to review under 28 U.S.C. § 1631. But we cannot
        transfer the petition, specifically because it was untimely. Section 1631 provides
        for the transfer of actions filed in the wrong court, dictating that when a peti-
        tion for review is filed in a court that does not have jurisdiction to review it,
        that “court shall, if it is in the interest of justice, transfer [the petition] to any
        other such court . . . in which the [petition] could have been brought at the
        time it was filed or noticed.” 28 U.S.C. § 1631. Thus, the plain language of
        § 1631 does not permit the transfer of an untimely petition for review such as
        Soul Quest’s because the petition could not have been brought in another
        court “at the time it was filed or noticed.” Id.; see De Ping Wang v. Dep’t of Home-
        land Sec., 484 F.3d 615, 616–18 (2d Cir. 2007).