An appeals court in the United States sided last week with a non-profit organization seeking to open a facility for supervised drug consumption in Philadelphia. It reversed an earlier court ruling and ruled that free exercise and religious freedom protections apply to almost any group that claims a religious motive.
The court remanded this case in an opinion by a panel of three judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit. Safehouse V. Department of JusticeBack to the district court of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, to determine if the religious group has plausibly pleaded their case in accordance with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
A district court decision in this case, which sided with Department of Justice lawyers who argued the views of the group on harm reduction are “socio-political”, not religious, rejected Safehouse’s claim of protection under RFRA. Safehouse appealed the ruling in September.
According to the new Third Circuit opinion published Thursday, a lower court’s ruling was “reversible.”
The ruling states that “RFRA plain text and the Free Exercise doctrine make it clear that these statutory and Constitutional protections are extended to non-natural entities, including what is called non-religious organizations.” It cites past court cases in favor of Hobby Lobby, an evangelical arts and crafts store, as well as a Colorado bakery who refused to bake a wedding for a couple on the basis of religious beliefs.
The court stated that for these and other reasons “we will overturn the District Court’s decision that Safehouse was not protected under RFRA or the Free Exercise Clause because it is a nonreligious organization and remand to the District Court so they can consider whether Safehouse plausibly pleaded RFRA counterclaims and Free Exercise claims.”
Safehouse leaders, in a letter sent to supporters said they were “gratified” that the Third Circuit acknowledged that Safehouse was entitled to full protection under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and First Amendment.
The group stated that “today’s ruling is an important landmark not only for Safehouse but also for other community-based groups who save lives through evidence-based harm reduction strategies.” “The Court’s decision confirms what we always believed, that the law protects our mission of preserving human life during an unprecedented epidemic.”
Safehouse is not allowed to operate its facility for supervised consumption in Philadelphia based on the appeals decision, but it can continue to challenge the government’s claim that this would be a violation of federal law.
The case was still pending in district courts in August of 2023. 35 Christian and Jewish leaders representing 19 states presented an amicus curiae brief, in which they said that Safehouse’s mission, to prevent harm, aligns well with the religious convictions held by its board.
DOJ had, however, claimed that maintaining a Safehouse where drug users would be invited to consume illicit drugs would constitute a violation of 21 U.S.C. § 856(a)(2).”
That law, in relevant part, makes it illegal to “manage or control any place…and knowingly or intentionally…make available for use, with or without compensation, the place for the purpose of unlawfully manufacturing, storing, distributing, or using a controlled substance.”
DOJ has argued in the past that religious exemptions do not apply to Safehouse because it is not an actual religious group. The religious leaders said that board members of the organization are motivated to stop drug overdoses by their faith.
As for whether RFRA will allow an exception from Controlled Substances Act itself, federal law states that “anyone may request an exception in order to apply any provisions of this chapter.” However DOJ lawyers argue that it only permits “a specific exception” to CSA regulations and does not permit an exemption itself.
Safehouse announced its first plans to build a safe consumption facility in Philadelphia during the Trump Administration. DOJ filed a lawsuit to stop the facility on grounds that it violated federal drug laws. Safehouse won the case in the district court, but that ruling was overturned later by the Third Circuit.
Under the Biden Administration, DOJ officials continued to fight against the Safehouse site. The Supreme Court rejected a request to hear a case on the legality of the Safehouse facilities in October 2021.
While the Philadelphia facility was being held up in the litigation, New York City opened the first locally sanctioned harm reduction centers in the U.S. in November 2021, and officials reported positive results saving lives.
An American Medical Association study from 2022 found that New York City’s facilities reduced the overdose risks, deterred people from using illicit drugs in public places and provided auxiliary health services to those who use illegal substances.
A separate study published by AMA in the year following found that New York City’s first overdose prevention center (OPC) didn’t lead to an increase in crime despite a notable decrease of arrests.
Rhode Island, while Minnesota and Vermont have also authorized overdose prevention centers (OPCs) at the state level.
In early this year however, state officials put the Minnesota plans on hold, citing concern about federal laws.
Last October, a group of doctors argued that overdose prevention centers—where people can more safely use illegal drugs in a medically supervised environment and are typically connected to a host of other services—”represent a wise, cost-effective, and necessary use” of state opioid settlement funds.
Doctors for Drug Policy Reform’s (D4DPR) paper stated that these centers “can save lives, improve the public health and promote racial equality.” The sites are in Europe for nearly four decades now and in North America they have existed since 2003.
The group stated that “these sites have improved overdose mortality and safety and increased addiction treatment access without increasing crime rates.” They added: “For some individuals who use drug, these centers may be the only place where they receive dignity and respect.”
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) put out a pair of requests for applications in December 2021 to investigate how safe consumption sites and other harm reduction policies could help address the drug crisis.
In August 2023, a U.S. congresswoman from New Jersey was among a number of speakers who called for support and expansion of OPCs at a Drug Policy Alliance event held ahead of International Overdose Awareness Day.
Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-NJ), who in 2021 sponsored a bill to federally decriminalize all drugs, said during Monday’s webinar that OPCs are an “important part” of a “necessary shift” away from punitive drug policies and toward a more health-centered approach.
Nora Volkow (Director of NIDA, the National Institute on Drug Abuse) in 2022 tacitly supported the idea that safe consumption sites could prevent overdose deaths. Volkow argued the evidence had effectively shown that such facilities are effective at preventing them.
Volkow refused to state what exactly she thinks should be done with this lawsuit. However, she did say that research on safe consumption sites “has shown it’s saved significant amounts of money.” [percentage of] “Preventing patients from taking too much medication.”
Below you can read the complete Third Circuit decision in Safehouse V. DOJ.
Photos courtesy Flickr/Marco Verch.