A federal appeals court ruled against a drug dealer who argued that distributing heroin was “an exercise” of his “sincerely held religious belief.”
A federal court convicted Timothy Anderson of charges involving “a conspiracy to distribute large quantities of heroin in the St. Louis area” in 2016, according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Eastern District of Missouri. Anderson, who represented himself in court, appealed the conviction to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that the district court failed to consider his pretrial motion to dismiss the indictment because prosecution didn’t comply with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
“In this motion, Anderson admitted that he distributed heroin, but he argued that the government’s decision to prosecute him under the Controlled Substances Act (“CSA”) violated his free exercise rights under RFRA,” wrote Judge Raymond Gruender in the 8th Circuit appellate court’s panel opinion against Anderson. “Anderson alleged that he ‘is a student of Esoteric and Mysticism studies” who created “a religious nonprofit” to distribute heroin to “the sick, lost, blind, lame, deaf and dead members of Gods’ [sic] Kingdom.” As such, he argued that the government’s decision to prosecute him violated the RFRA because his practice of distributing heroin was ‘an exercise of [his] sincerely held religious belief.’
Gruender, formerly under consideration by President Trump for the Supreme Court vacancy filled by Justice Neil Gorsuch, wrote the federal appeals court’s opinion backing the lower court’s decision to deny Anderson’s appeal. Gruender noted that the district court did not conduct a hearing to evaluate the sincerity of Anderson’s religious claims, but noted that “a reasonable observer may legitimately question how plausible it is that Anderson exercised a sincerely held religious belief by distributing heroin.”
“Anderson does not even allege that the recipients of his heroin used it for their own religious purposes,” Gruender wrote. “Rather, he alleges only that his distribution allowed him to exercise his own religious beliefs. Thus, we have no difficulty concluding that prosecuting Anderson under the CSA would further a compelling governmental interest in mitigating the risk that heroin will be diverted to recreational users.”
Gruender’s opinion also rejected Anderson’s assertion that he should be allowed to present his religious defense to a jury, but that does not seem to have deterred Anderson in his efforts to assist the Missourians in climbing the stairway to heaven with a boost of heroin.
“Anderson has indicated that he will not stop distributing heroin under any circumstances, stating that he ‘does not want to compromise his faith in any way,'” Gruender wrote. “As such we are convinced that prosecuting Anderson under the CSA represents the least restrictive means for the government to further its compelling interest in mitigating diversion of heroin to recreational users. Therefore, we reject Anderson’s RFRA defense.”
