Last week, the Department of Justice (DOJ), in an attempt to dismiss a suit by a Philadelphia nonprofit that was trying to open a site for supervised drug consumption, filed another court brief. The government claims that the organization does not qualify for the federal religious exemptions it is claiming, nor any other exceptions in the lawsuit.
This court filing was made about a week after 35 Christian faith leaders and Jewish faith leader from 19 states filed an amicus brief, in which they supported Safehouse’s creation of a site for overdose prevention under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The court filing comes about a month after a href=”https://www.marijuanamoment.net/religious-leaders-ask-federal-court-to-keep-drug-overdose-prevention-center-lawsuit-alive-amid-doj-opposition/” rel=”noopener” target=”_blank>35 Christian and Jewish faith leaders from 19 states submitted an amicus brief/a> in which they supported the nonprofit Safehouse’s establishment of RFRA under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) /a> /> />.
In its response to Safehouse’s amicus brief, and to Safehouse itself, the DOJ simply states that “one aspect” of Safehouse’s proposal is “not consistent with the law”. Specifically, the DOJ says “maintaining an area where Safehouse invites drug users to consume illicit drugs would be a violation of 21 U.S.C. SS 856 (a) (2).”
This law makes it illegal, in part, to “manage, control, or otherwise make available any place…and intentionally or knowingly…make the place available for use with or without compensation for the unlawful manufacturing, storage, distribution, or use of a controlled substance.”
The DOJ brief states that it would not be a violation of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) if Safehouse staff remained close to illegal drug use on public streets in Philadelphia, where this has been happening for decades. Inadvertently, the DOJ acknowledges the failure of criminal prohibitions to stop drug consumption. The only restriction is it cannot invite drug use within its facility.
DOJ has argued previously that the religious exception does not apply, because Safehouse is not a genuine religious organization. In their brief, the religious leaders said that Safehouse’s board members were motivated by their faith to prevent drug overdose deaths.
The organization stated that the Judeo-Christian tradition is known for its long history of supporting and treating sick people, even when they do things outside the norm. The Government’s attempts, if successful will significantly impair the ability for Jewish and Christian Safehouse Board members to practice their religious beliefs.
In its latest reply, the DOJ argues that “Safehouse” is not a religion and therefore cannot claim RFRA rights or Free Exercise on behalf of the company. It also claims that the nonprofit’s “professed belief’ that facilitating illegal drug usage is not a religious’ belief, but a sociopolitical one informed by harm-reduction principles.”
The brief continues that even if Safehouse was a religious organization, the nonprofit cannot claim that the law “poses substantial burdens on its freedom of religion” when it has acknowledged there are many other ways to express its beliefs.
Lawyers for the DOJ argue further that Safehouse’s case does not meet the strict scrutiny standard that is applied to other specialized exemptions to the CSA. The reply states that “Safehouse’s opposition brief” confirms that none the scattered provisions identified constitute a mechanism for individualized exemptions from the law.
The brief acknowledges that the CSA provides that “anyone may apply for an exemption to the application to any provision of this Chapter,” but government lawyers claim that that provision only allows “an exception to specific CSA regulations,” and not an exception of the statute itself.
The government brief states that Safehouse cannot be exempted under the law’s 21 U.S.C. SS 856 (a)(2) prohibits the provision of a drug-free space.
DOJ states that Safehouse also cited other exceptions to its eligibility in order to support regulations and not statutory prohibitions.
The brief states that “there is no illogic” in the government interpretation: “the Government can waive certain requirements under certain circumstances but not allrequirements, given the clear limitations of the applicable statutes and regulations.”
The brief notes that the “consumption rooms” of Safehouse also face potential hurdles in state and local laws. In a vote of 13-1, the Philadelphia City Council approved legislation that prohibits the opening of supervised injection facilities in the majority districts in Philadelphia, absent special approval from the zoning board. And the state Senate voted in May to ban the establishment and operation of supervised injection facilities. Josh Shapiro, a Democrat, has stated that he will sign the bill if it reaches his desk.
If either of these measures is enacted, DOJ states that “this case will likely be moot due to lack of redressability.” The government has the right to dismiss an employee on these grounds at any time.
Before DOJ responded to the lawsuit, local legislators, including Democrats who support marijuana legalization, requested that the federal court block Safehouse’s opening, and asked permission to file an amicus brief in the case. A coalition of 20 Pennsylvania communities groups requested the court to allow them to intervene. However, in recognition that the government was defending its existing statute, and opposed overdose prevention centers, the court denied their request.
The Justice Department declined to submit a brief in order to express its position regarding harm reduction, and asked for to have more time to respond to the “complex case. The department stated last year that it was evaluating potential “guardrails” for safe consumption sites.
Safehouse and the department decided to transfer the case to mediation in January to resolve the issue. The discussions were described as “productive,”, leaving some advocates hoping that DOJ would drop the dispute.
Under the Trump administration, the Justice Department initially blocked Safehouse’s opening of the overdose prevention facility. The Justice Department initially blocked Safehouse from opening the overdose prevention center under the Trump administration.
The Supreme Court has rejected a request to hear a case in October 2021 on the legality Safehouse facilities.
In November 2021, New York City opened its first locally sanctioned harm-reduction centers in the U.S., and officials reported that it had saved lives.
The American Medical Association published a study last year that found the newly opened New York City facility had reduced the risk of overdose and discouraged people from using drugs in the public. It also provided other ancillary services to those who use illicit substances.
A federal prosecutor with jurisdiction in Manhattan has recently told The New York Times in a declaration that these sites are illegal, and that he’s “prepared to use all options – including enforcement – if this situation doesn’t change quickly.”
Researchers in Congress have pointed out that the position of the federal government regarding such facilities is “uncertain”. They noted last November that legislators could resolve the issue temporarily by passing an amendment similar to the one which has allowed the medical marijuana laws be implemented without Justice Department intervention.
Nora Volkow, Director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, has implicitly endorsed the idea to authorize safe consumption sites . She argues that evidence has shown that these facilities are effective in preventing overdose deaths.
Volkow refused to specify what she thinks should be done with the lawsuit. However, she did say that research on safe consumption sites “has shown that they have saved a significant (percentage) of patients from overdosing.”
Rahul Gupta is the White House Drug Czar. He has stated that the Biden administration is examining broader drug policy proposals . This includes the authorization of supervised sites for consumption. In fact, he even suggested possible decriminalization.
In December 2021, the National Institutes of Health issued two requests for applications to examine how harm reduction policies and safe consumption sites could be used to address the drug epidemic.
Gupta is the director of White House Office of National Drug Control Policy. He has stated that it’s important to explore “any option” in order to reduce the number of overdose deaths. This may include allowing the use of illegal substances at safe consumption sites if there are sufficient evidence to support their effectiveness.
Below is the DOJ’s reply brief to the Safehouse case.
GOP Senates File Bill to Block Biden Marijuana Rescheduling Effort without Congressional Approval
The post In Safe Drug Consumption Case, DOJ Says Philadelphia Nonprofit’s Harm Reduction beliefs Are ‘Sociopolitical,’ not Religious first appeared on Marijuana moment.
