Ayahuasca is not legal in the U.S. for general use. Because the brew contains DMT, a Schedule I controlled substance, possessing it, brewing it, or serving it at a ceremony is a federal crime. The only established exception is for religious organizations that have secured a formal exemption from the Drug Enforcement Administration. A handful of cities have deprioritized enforcement against personal use of entheogenic plants, but that is not the same as legalization, and it does not protect anyone from federal prosecution.
Why Ayahuasca Is a Federal Crime
The Controlled Substances Act sorts regulated drugs into five schedules. DMT sits in Schedule I, the most restrictive tier, alongside heroin and LSD.1Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 21 U.S.C. 812 – Schedules of Controlled Substances Schedule I means the federal government considers the substance to have a high abuse potential and no currently accepted medical use.
The statute doesn’t list ayahuasca by name. It doesn’t need to. Federal law classifies “any material, compound, mixture, or preparation, which contains any quantity” of DMT as a Schedule I substance, so the brewed tea falls under that definition.2Drug Enforcement Administration Diversion Control Division. N,N-Dimethyltryptamine (DMT) Manufacturing, distributing, or possessing the tea is a federal offense.
The plants themselves cause some confusion. Ayahuasca is typically brewed from two ingredients: the Banisteriopsis caapi vine and leaves from a DMT-containing plant such as Psychotria viridis. The caapi vine on its own contains harmala alkaloids rather than DMT, so it isn’t specifically scheduled. The leaves that supply the DMT are another matter, and the finished brew is unambiguously illegal. Possessing the vine alone sits in a gray area, but buying it together with DMT-containing plant material builds the government’s case for you.
The Religious Exemption
The one established legal pathway runs through religious liberty. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act prohibits the federal government from substantially burdening a person’s exercise of religion unless the burden advances a compelling interest by the least restrictive means available.3Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 42 U.S.C. 2000bb-1 – Free Exercise of Religion Protected
In 2006, the Supreme Court applied that standard to ayahuasca in Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal. The UDV is a Brazilian-origin church that uses ayahuasca as its central sacrament. After U.S. Customs agents seized a shipment of tea, the church sued. The Court ruled 8–0 that the government had failed to show a compelling interest strong enough to override the church’s religious practice.4Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center. Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (2006) Chief Justice Roberts wrote that the Controlled Substances Act could accommodate religious exceptions and that the government had to justify its burden on each specific practice rather than rely on blanket prohibitions.
Three years later, a federal district court in Oregon applied the same reasoning to the Church of the Holy Light of the Queen, a Santo Daime congregation, and ordered that the church be allowed to import and use its sacramental tea subject to reasonable restrictions.5GovInfo. Church of the Holy Light of the Queen v. Mukasey, CV 08-3095-PA (D. Or. 2009)
Those decisions did not create a blanket exemption for anyone who calls a gathering a ceremony. Each organization has to independently demonstrate the sincerity and centrality of its religious practice.
Petitioning the DEA
An organization that wants to use ayahuasca legally must petition the DEA’s Diversion Control Division for an exemption. The DEA published formal guidance for the process in 2020.6Drug Enforcement Administration. Guidance Regarding Petitions for Religious Exemption from the Controlled Substances Act Pursuant to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act The petition must show that enforcing the Controlled Substances Act against the group’s specific practice would substantially burden a sincere religious exercise. In practice, that requires detailed disclosures about the religion’s history, beliefs, leadership, membership policies, ritual use, and the amounts and locations of manufacture, storage, and consumption. It is signed under penalty of perjury.
The biggest obstacle is time. The DEA evaluates each petition individually, and reviews have run into years. In one case involving the Iowaska Church, a federal appeals judge criticized a three-year delay and said review should take months, not years; as of late 2025, that petition had been pending for roughly six years. Until May 2025, no organization had ever received approval through the petition process alone. Every prior exemption came through litigation or settlement. That changed when the DEA approved the Church of Gaia’s petition without a lawsuit, the first voluntary grant of a religious exemption.
What Decriminalization Does and Doesn’t Do
Several cities have deprioritized enforcement against naturally occurring psychedelics, including Denver, Oakland, Santa Cruz, Ann Arbor, Seattle, and Washington, D.C. Some measures cover only psilocybin mushrooms; others include DMT-containing plants. Decriminalization is not legalization. It means local police treat personal use as their lowest enforcement priority.
None of those local measures change federal law. Federal agents can still arrest, charge, and prosecute anyone possessing ayahuasca in a decriminalized city.
Colorado has gone further. In 2022, voters passed the Natural Medicine Health Act, which defined “natural medicine” to include DMT alongside psilocybin, psilocin, ibogaine, and mescaline (excluding peyote), and created a framework for licensed healing centers. Through June 2026, only psilocybin and psilocin are authorized for the regulated program. After that date, the state’s Natural Medicine Advisory Board may recommend adding DMT, ibogaine, or mescaline. Even if DMT is added, federal law would still prohibit it.
Penalties for Participants, Organizers, and Importers
Attending an underground ayahuasca ceremony is not low risk just because enforcement is inconsistent. Both organizers and participants can face federal charges, and the exposure differs sharply between them.
Organizers carry the harsher exposure. Anyone who brews and serves ayahuasca without a DEA exemption is distributing a Schedule I substance, a felony carrying up to 20 years in prison and fines up to $1 million.7Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 21 U.S.C. 841 – Prohibited Acts A Federal authorities have prosecuted ceremony leaders. In one case, an indigenous Colombian healer was arrested at Houston’s international airport while traveling to lead traditional ceremonies in Oregon and faced up to 20 years in federal prison.
Participants face possession charges. A first offense for simple possession of a Schedule I substance is a misdemeanor carrying up to one year in prison and a minimum $1,000 fine. A second conviction raises the minimum to 15 days in jail (up to two years) and a $2,500 fine. A third bumps it to at least 90 days (up to three years) and a $5,000 fine.8Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 21 U.S.C. 844 – Penalties for Simple Possession
Bringing ayahuasca into the country is treated as drug importation. U.S. Customs and Border Protection screens incoming packages and travelers, and shipments are seized regularly. Penalties mirror those for domestic distribution: up to 20 years and $1 million for a first offense, escalating to 30 years and $2 million with a prior felony drug conviction. This applies regardless of quantity, and personal spiritual use is not a legal defense.
Property is also on the line. Federal civil forfeiture law reaches any real property used to commit or facilitate a drug offense punishable by more than one year in prison, along with vehicles, cash, and equipment connected to the activity.9Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 21 U.S.C. 881 – Forfeitures For someone hosting ceremonies on their own property without a DEA exemption, the home itself can be seized. The government’s title vests at the moment the offense is committed, so forfeiture can proceed even before a criminal conviction.