21 C.F.R. § 1307.03
Exceptions to regulations
Any person may apply for an exception to the application of any provision of this chapter by filing a written request with the Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, stating the reasons for such exception. See the Table of DEA Mailing Addresses in § 1321.01 of this chapter for the current mailing address. The Administrator may grant an exception in his discretion, but in no case shall he/she be required to grant an exception to any person which is otherwise required by law or the regulations cited in this section.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2006–2024 · leading case: Skyline Wesleyan Church v. Ca Dept of Managed Health Care, 968 F.3d 738 (9th Cir. 2020).
Skyline Wesleyan Church v. Ca Dept of Managed Health Care, 968 F.3d 738 (9th Cir. 2020). “at 838 (quoting 21 C.F.R. § 1307.03 ). The church was not required to apply for an exception before filing suit because the church had already suffered a seizure, and it was likely enough that further enforcement would follow.”
Bonds v. Tandy, 457 F.3d 409 (5th Cir. 2006). “”); 21 C.F.R. § 1307.03 (allowing for waiver of regulations in the Administrator's discretion).”
Oklevueha Native Am. Church of Hawaii, Inc. v. Holder, 676 F.3d 829 (9th Cir. 2012). “The Government argues that we should require Plaintiffs to exhaust this administrative remedy, because doing so would allow the DEA to apply its expertise to Plaintiffs’ claim, possibly moot the case if the claim is granted, and help build a record for judicial review.”
Iowaska Church of Healing v. Daniel Werfel, 105 F.4th 402 (D.C. Cir. 2024). “See 21 C.F.R. § 1307.03 . Pursuant to that delegated authority, the DEA issued guidance in 2009 (“2009 Guidance”) for “[p]arties requesting religious exemptions from” the CSA.”
Visels Drug Store, Inc. v. Drug Enf't Admin., 593 F. App'x 12 (2d Cir. 2014). “The Administrator may grant an exception in his discretion, but in no case shall he/she be required to grant an exception to any person which is otherwise required by law or the regulations cited in this section.”
Oklevueha Native Am. Church v. Holder, 676 F.3d 829 (9th Cir. 2012). “The Government argues that we should require Plaintiffs to exhaust this administrative remedy, because doing so would allow the DEA to apply its expertise to Plaintiffs' claim, possibly moot the case if the claim is granted, and help build a record for judicial review.”
Skyline Wesleyan Church v. Ca Dept of Managed Health Care (9th Cir. 2020). “at 838 (quoting 21 C.F.R. § 1307.03 ). The church was not required to apply for an exception before filing suit because the church had already suffered a seizure, and it was likely enough that further enforcement would follow.”
Iowaska Church of Healing v. Rettig (D.D.C. 2023). “See 21 C.F.R. § 1307.03 ; see also DEA, Diversion Control Division, Guidance Regarding Petitions for Religious Exemption from the Controlled Substances Act Pursuant to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (Revised) (updated Nov.”
Arizona Yage Assembly v. Garland (D. Ariz. 2022). “Though there is a valid regulation, 21 C.F.R. § 1307.03 , requiring 6 persons seeking exemptions to file a written request with the DEA Office of Diversion 7 Control, the Ninth Circuit held persons seeking a RFRA exemption from the DEA are not 8 required to exhaust the…”
Iowaska Church of Healing v. Daniel Werfel (D.C. Cir. 2024). “See 21 C.F.R. § 1307.03 . Pursuant to that delegated authority, the DEA issued guidance in 2009 (“2009 Guidance”) for “[p]arties requesting religious exemptions from” the CSA.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.