Federal Court Sides With Safe Drug Consumption Site, Saying Religious Protections Apply

A federal appeals court last week sided with a nonprofit attempting to open a supervised drug consumption facility in Philadelphia, reversing a lower court decision and ruling that religious freedom and free exercise protections are applicable to nearly any group claiming a religious motivation for its actions.

In an opinion from a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, the court remanded the case, Safehouse v. Department of Justice, back to district court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to determine whether the group “has plausibly pleaded” its case under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and the First Amendment.

An earlier district court ruling in the case rejected Safehouse’s claim that the group was protected under RFRA, siding with Department of Justice (DOJ) lawyers who’d argued that the group’s views on harm reduction were “socio-political,” not religious.  Safehouse appealed that ruling last September.

The new Third Circuit opinion, published on Thursday, says the lower court ruling was a “reversible error.”

“RFRA’s plain text and Free Exercise doctrine are clear that those statutory and constitutional protections extend to non-natural persons, including so-called non-religious entities,” the ruling says, citing past court decisions in favor of the evangelical-owned arts-and-crafts store Hobby Lobby as well as a Colorado baker who refused on religious grounds to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.

For those and other reasons, the court said, “we will reverse the District Court’s order that Safehouse is not protected by RFRA and the Free Exercise Clause as a non-religious entity and remand for it to consider whether Safehouse has plausibly pleaded RFRA and Free Exercise counterclaims.”

In a statement sent to supporters, Safehouse leaders said they “are gratified that the Third Circuit acknowledges that Safehouse is entitled to the full protection of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the First Amendment.

“Today’s decision is an important milestone not only for Safehouse, but for all community-based organizations that save lives by evidence-based, compassionate harm-reduction strategies,” the group said. “The Court’s opinion recognizes what we have always believed: The law safeguards our mission to preserve human life in an unprecedented overdose crisis.”

The appeals ruling does not itself allow Safehouse to open its supervised consumption facility in Philadelphia, though it allows the group to continue its challenge against the federal government’s assertion that the prospective site would violate federal law.

In August 2023, when the case was still in district court, 35 Christian and Jewish faith leaders from 19 states submitted an amicus brief in which they supported the nonprofit’s establishment of overdose prevention site under RFRA, saying that Safehouse’s board members’ mission to reduce harm aligns with sincerely held religious beliefs.

DOJ had argued, meanwhile, that “maintaining a place where Safehouse would invite drug users to consume illegal drugs would violate 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 previously argued that the religious exemption does not apply because Safehouse itself is not a bona fide religious organization. But the religious leaders asserted that the group’s board members are nevertheless motivated by a faith-based understanding of their obligation to prevent unnecessary drug overdose deaths.

As to whether RFRA would allow an exemption to Controlled Substances Act (CSA) itself, the federal drug law does say that “any person may apply for an exception to the application of any provision of this chapter,” but DOJ lawyers have argued that the provision allows only “an exception to particular CSA regulations,” not an exemption from the statute itself.

Safehouse first announced plans to open a Philadelphia safe consumption site in 2018, during the first Trump administration. DOJ sued to block the facility, arguing that it would violate federal drug laws. The district court in that matter sided with Safehouse, but the ruling was later overturned by the Third Circuit.

The case continued under the Biden administration, with DOJ officials continuing to push back against the 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.

A 2022 study published by the American Medical Association (AMA) found that the New York City facilities decreased the risk of overdose, steered people away from using drugs in public and provided other ancillary health services to people who use illicit substances.

Separate research published AMA the following year found that New York City’s first drug overdose prevention centers (OPCs) did not lead to increased crime despite a significant decrease in arrests.

Rhode Island, while Minnesota and Vermont have also authorized overdose prevention centers (OPCs) at the state level.

Earlier this year, however, the Minnesota plans were put on pause, with state officials citing concerns about federal law.

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.

The centers can “save lives, improve public health and advance racial equity,” said the paper from the advocacy group Doctors for Drug Policy Reform (D4DPR), adding that the sites have been operating in Europe for almost four decades and have existed in North America since 2003.

“These sites have reduced overdose morbidity and mortality, improved injection safety, and increased access to addiction treatment without raising crime rates,” the group said, adding: “For many individuals who use drugs, these centers are often the only places where they are treated with 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.

National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) Director Nora Volkow in 2022 also tacitly endorsed the idea of authorizing safe consumption sites, arguing that evidence has effectively demonstrated that the facilities can prevent overdose deaths.

Volkow declined to say specifically what she believes should happen with the ongoing lawsuit, but she said safe consumption sites that have been the subject of research “have shown that it has saved a significant [percentage of] patients from overdosing.”

Read the full Third Circuit ruling in Safehouse v. DOJ below:

Photo courtesy of Flickr/Marco Verch.