A landmark federal lawsuit is challenging Oregon’s Psilocybin Services Program, alleging that its strict regulations discriminate against individuals with disabilities. Filed by four licensed psilocybin facilitators, the lawsuit, Cusker v. Oregon Health Authority, claims that the Oregon Health Authority (OHA) has imposed barriers that prevent homebound and terminally ill patients from accessing psilocybin therapy.
This case has sparked a larger debate about the intersection of state policy, federal drug regulations, and accessibility to alternative medicine. As Oregon and Colorado stand as the only two states with regulated psilocybin programs, the outcome of this lawsuit could set a precedent for how other states approach psychedelic-assisted therapy.
The Basis of the Lawsuit
The lawsuit, filed in federal court, challenges Oregon’s requirement that all psilocybin sessions must take place at state-licensed service centers. The plaintiffs argue that this mandate effectively excludes homebound individuals from receiving treatment, particularly those with chronic illnesses or mobility restrictions.
Rebecca Martinez, CEO of Cora Center, a licensed psilocybin service center in Portland OR, recalls a key advocacy component challenging Measure 109 during the election campaign:
“During the campaign for Measure 109, we regularly cited psilocybin’s potential benefits for people facing end of life distress. Unfortunately, the program does not currently have sufficient avenues for participants who are unable to travel to a center to access these potentially transformative experiences.”
Martinez added “We hope that this lawsuit will lead to new legislation that creates an exception for in-home use of psilocybin for people facing terminal diagnoses.”
Another facilitator in Oregon (who asked to remain anonymous for fear of liability) shared concerns:
“How are you going to provide a therapy to the public, naming our state’s mental health crisis, and then make that therapy unavailable to the people whose mental health outcomes affect those statistics?”
Oregon’s approach was intended to create a safe and controlled environment for psychedelic therapy, ensuring that trained professionals oversee all sessions. However, opponents argue that this one-size-fits-all model fails to accommodate those who physically cannot travel to a service center due to medical conditions.
Regulatory Conflict: State vs. Federal Law
At the heart of this case is the conflict between state laws legalizing psilocybin therapy and federal drug policies. Psilocybin remains a Schedule I controlled substance under federal law, which has created regulatory hurdles for states attempting to implement their own frameworks.
Legal experts warn that the lawsuit could force a reevaluation of how states regulate emerging psychedelic therapies, balancing safety, accessibility, and legal compliance.
Jon Denis, an attorney and activist deeply involved in Oregon’s psilocybin policy expressed concerns about the potential for the program to prioritize business interests over equitable access. While on an episode of the Psychedelics Today podcast he stated:
“If Oregon’s program prioritizes business interests to the detriment of marginalized people, I think the historical record will bear the stain of scandal and corruption on this.”
Oregon vs. Colorado: A Tale of Two Psychedelic Models
Oregon was the first U.S. state to legalize psilocybin therapy, but Colorado has taken a different approach. In 2022, Colorado voters passed Proposition 122, which decriminalized psilocybin and other entheogens while creating a therapeutic framework that allows for both regulated service centers and at-home use in some cases.
Supporters of the Oregon lawsuit argue that Colorado’s model offers greater accessibility, as it does not confine all therapy sessions to a state-licensed facility. However, critics worry that loosening restrictions too quickly could lead to safety concerns and regulatory loopholes.
In comparing the psilocybin policies of Oregon and Colorado, Courtney Barnes, a social justice attorney specializing in drug policy reform, highlights key distinctions:
“In addition to the state-licensed facility requirement, Oregon also allows municipalities to ban the operation of psilocybin service centers, whereas Colorado does not allow localities to totally opt out of the program and it allows for personal use in private residences.”
The comparison between the two states’ policies will likely play a significant role in the legal and public discourse surrounding this case.
The Broader Implications
If the lawsuit succeeds, it could force Oregon to revise its psilocybin regulations to allow for greater accessibility, particularly for disabled and terminally ill patients. It may also inspire similar legal challenges in other states as the push for psychedelic medicine reform gains momentum nationwide.
Conversely, if the court rules in favor of OHA’s current restrictions, it could solidify a precedent of strict, service-center-only access, potentially influencing other states drafting psychedelic therapy laws.
For now, facilitators, advocates, and policymakers will be closely watching Cusker v. Oregon Health Authority to see whether the future of psilocybin therapy will prioritize accessibility or regulatory control.
