#United States #Ann Arbor #Free Speech #University of Michigan #Entheofest

Entheofest Permit Denial and the Fight for Free Speech

The denial of a permit for the 5th Annual Entheofest by the University of Michigan has led to a significant constitutional clash set to unfold in the Michigan Court of Claims. Scheduled for September 17, 2025, at 1:30 PM, this legal confrontation highlights the ongoing battle for free speech rights on university grounds.

Timeline of Events Leading to Court Action

The saga began on August 13, 2025, when the university denied the permit for Entheofest for the first time in its five-year history. This denial prompted an immediate appeal by the Students Association for Psychedelic Studies (SAPS).

By August 21, the university had requested strategies to counter uninvited vendors, which the Entheofest organizers addressed with a detailed plan including enhanced security measures and community engagement. However, on August 25, the university denied the permit again, citing concerns over promoting illegal substances and potential safety risks linked to large crowds—an argument drawing parallels to another historic free speech event, Hash Bash.

In response to these denials, SAPS initiated a lawsuit against the university, stressing that the denial of the festival constitutes a violation of First Amendment rights. They underscored that advocating for legal changes regarding Schedule I substances is fundamental political speech deserving of protection. Emily Berriman, SAPS President, emphasized that comparable events have occurred without similar restrictions.

Court Proceedings and Legal Arguments

On September 3, the case was acknowledged by Washtenaw County Circuit Judge Tracy Van den Bergh as raising critical constitutional questions but was subsequently transferred to the Court of Claims. Thomas Lavigne, attorney for SAPS, articulated the significance of the ruling: recognizing that the university operates as a state entity, thus students at the university hold the same constitutional rights as any citizen, including free expression and assembly.

University Guidelines Contradicted

Complicating matters, the University of Michigan's own guidelines, revised on January 9, 2025, indicate a commitment to policies that require shared responsibility for events happening on campus grounds. Rather than holding students liable for any potential issues, the guidelines stress collaborative planning. The university’s denial, however, shifts this burden entirely onto the event's organizers, which contradicts its established policies and raises further questions about the university's decision-making processes.

A Historical Pattern of Denial

Jim Salame, founder of Entheofest, remarked on the repeating nature of these denials, likening the situation to previous cases involving the Michigan NORML and Hash Bash in the 1990s, where courts ultimately sided with free speech advocates. He asserts that the university’s arguments mirror past failed attempts to suppress open dialogue.

Jamie Lowell, a Hash Bash organizer, pointed out that the implications of this case reach beyond just Entheofest; it could potentially threaten even the most traditional free speech gatherings on campus if the university's stance is upheld.

The Broader Implications

As the court date approaches, Salame emphasized that this issue transcends the festival. It reflects a larger question regarding whether a public university will uphold the First Amendment rights of individuals to assemble peacefully on public property. He asserts that Entheofest, launched in 2021, not only serves as a celebration of community and education around psychotropic plants but also stands as a testament to democratic values and student activism in higher education.

The upcoming event on September 21, 2025, in Ann Arbor, continues to be in limbo pending court decisions. In addition to the festival itself, an afterparty is planned, showcasing local culture and music, further illustrating the community's commitment to the principles of free expression and social reform. As developments unfold, the attention of advocates and civil rights supporters will undoubtedly be focused on the outcome of this pivotal court case.