Third Circuit revives trial over supervised drug injection site

PHILADELPHIA (CN) — A Third Circuit panel on Thursday revived a yearslong battle between the Justice Department and Philadelphia nonprofit Safehouse over whether a faith-driven supervised drug injection site can legally exist.

“We 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,” said Ronda Goldfein, Safehouse vice president and secretary, in a message to Courthouse News. “The court’s opinion recognizes what we have always believed: The law safeguards our mission to preserve human life in an unprecedented overdose crisis.”

For more than six years, Safehouse has fought a protracted legal battle to open a supervised injection site in Kensington, Philadelphia, a neighborhood home to what is widely considered the largest open-air drug market in the U.S.

The Justice Department has argued that such a site would violate the Controlled Substances Act — specifically, a section colloquially known as the “crack house statute” that bars anyone from maintaining a place for the purpose of storing, using or selling drugs.

In turn, Safehouse has argued that because it’s driven by Judeo-Christian beliefs that emphasize protecting lives, the organization argued, its proposed site is protected by both the First Amendment right to free exercise clause and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), a national expansion of religious protections.

In April 2024, U.S. District Judge Gerald A. McHugh ruled in favor of the Justice Department, writing that Safehouse itself is not a religious entity and thus is not eligible for religious protections, even if its founders are religiously motivated.

“The noble intentions of Safehouse and its founders are self-evident, and the public health crisis they seek to address continues unabated, but their religious inspiration does not provide a shield against prosecution for violation of a federal criminal statute barring its operation,” McHugh wrote in his 2024 ruling, dismissing Safehouse’s claims with prejudice.

On appeal, the Third Circuit disagreed, countering the entire basis of McHugh’s decision.

While McHugh asserted that Safehouse could only be afforded free exercise protections if the organization itself held foundational religious tenets, the appeals court soundly rejected such a restriction.

“There is no ‘non-religious entities’ carveout from the First Amendment,” wrote U.S. Circuit Judge David J. Porter, a first-term Donald Trump appointee, in the panel’s opinion. “After all, the purpose of extending rights to corporate persons is to protect the rights of natural persons acting through the corporate form. That purpose is no less true for religious exercise than it is for other rights.”

Additionally, the court panel pointed to RFRA’s plain text to show that Safehouse is entitled to religious protections under both laws.

“[The government] shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability” unless it furthers “a compelling governmental interest” and “is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest,” the act reads.

The key word — “person” — is not defined within RFRA itself, the court panel noted, but was confirmed to include all corporations in the Supreme Court’s 2014 Burwell v. Hobby Lobby ruling.

“If there was any doubt as to whether Safehouse is a ‘person’ under RFRA, Hobby Lobby eliminated it,” Porter wrote.

During oral arguments, a Justice Department attorney reflected McHugh’s argument, asserting to the Third Circuit panel that Safehouse could only be eligible for RFRA protections if its corporate documents bind it to operate in accordance with a religious purpose.

In its opinion, the three-judge panel — including U.S. Senior Circuit Judge D. Michael Fisher and U.S. Circuit Judge Thomas Hardiman, both George W. Bush appointees — disagreed.

“Whatever the merits of this framework, it has no basis in RFRA’s plain text,” Porter wrote. “RFRA applies to ‘a person’s exercise of religion’ and Safehouse is a ‘person’ claiming to exercise religion, so it is eligible for RFRA’s protections.”

The panel’s ruling sends the case back to McHugh for the third time in six years.

Back in October 2019, McHugh ruled in favor of Safehouse, writing that the organization’s aims ultimately oppose the use of drugs.

However, a Third Circuit panel vacated that decision in 2021. After two years of negotiations between the Justice Department and Safehouse failed to net a settlement, the parties returned to federal court.

With the second trial’s 2024 opinion now vacated, the Third Circuit panel now tasks McHugh with determining whether Safehouse plausibly pleaded free exercise and RFRA counterclaims.

Follow @JacksonHeals