A federal judge has denied the Oregon Health Authority’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit that challenges the state’s refusal to allow home-based psilocybin services for people with disabilities.
Filed by four trained or licensed psilocybin facilitators, the lawsuit claims Oregon’s psilocybin regulations violate the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by failing to accommodate clients who are physically unable to travel to licensed service centers. On May 30, U.S. District Judge Mustafa Kasubhai ruled that the plaintiffs have standing to pursue their case and plausibly stated a claim under the ADA.
The plaintiffs, including a licensed therapist and two doctors, argue that OHA’s current framework unfairly denies access to psilocybin services for clients with severe disabilities or terminal illness. Oregon law requires all psilocybin sessions to occur in licensed service centers, with no exceptions for home visits. Plaintiffs asked OHA to create a process for reasonable accommodation, but the agency responded that any such change would require a statutory amendment.
The state’s attorneys sought dismissal, contending that a court order allowing in-home psilocybin services would violate both state and federal controlled substances laws. Judge Kasubhai disagreed, stating that the relief sought was about access—not distribution of a controlled substance—and fell within the ADA’s requirements.
Citing a Ninth Circuit ruling involving access to a marijuana dispensary, the judge emphasized that courts may require states to make accommodations, even if it means adjusting health or safety laws, as long as it doesn’t directly mandate illegal activity. Kasubhai found the plaintiffs’ request similar to asking for physical accessibility, not for the court to compel the illegal delivery of psilocybin.
The court also rejected the argument that granting the plaintiffs’ request would violate separation of powers or federalism principles. The judge said that under the Supremacy Clause, the ADA can override conflicting state laws, just as courts have done in similar disability rights cases.
The ruling clears the way for the case to move forward.
