Civil rights – Church-autonomy doctrine – Medication policy

Where two plaintiffs have alleged that the defendant maintains a policy at its “Adult Rehabilitation Centers” (ARCs) that prevents individuals with opioid-use disorder from accessing medication for their disorder, the defendant’s motion for summary judgment should be allowed on the ground that its medication policy is a matter of church doctrine protected by the First Amendment.

“[The plaintiffs] represent a Rule 23(b)(2) class suing The Salvation Army, a New York corporation (‘TSA’) for discriminating against individuals with opioid-use disorder. They assert that TSA maintains a policy at its Adult Rehabilitation Centers that prevents such individuals from accessing medication for their disorder, in violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. §794, and the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §3604. TSA moved for summary judgment on two alternative grounds: first, that its Medication Policy is a matter of church doctrine protected by the First Amendment, and second, that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Plaintiffs’ statutory claims. … For the reasons that follow, TSA’s motion for summary judgment is allowed as to the Injunction Class. …

“… The Injunction Class seeks an order requiring TSA to, among other things, change ‘its policies to permit participants in ARC programs … to participate in [medication-assisted treatment], if prescribed by a physician, and to meet with and/or contact a physician concerning such prescription at any time during such participation.’ …

“TSA advances several related affirmative defenses rooted in the First Amendment — most centrally, that its restriction on beneficiaries’ use of narcotics to treat OUD is shielded from judicial scrutiny by the church-autonomy doctrine. …

“TSA’s primary argument is that the church-autonomy doctrine shields its Medication Policy from government regulation and judicial scrutiny. …

“… The Court need not endeavor to identify the precise outer limit of the church-autonomy doctrine, however, because wherever it is, TSA’s ARC Medication Policy falls within it.

“The undisputed facts establish that TSA regards ARCs as residential churches whose highest priority is to ‘bring the beneficiaries into a personal relationship with God.’ …

“… TSA requires beneficiaries to abide by Salvationist understanding of ‘abstinence’ and true rehabilitation while living in its residential church. … TSA’s rules for ARC beneficiaries’ abstinence (including its ban on narcotic MOUDs) are also part of the way TSA communicates Salvationism’s beliefs to beneficiaries. The method is the message.

“… The Court can no sooner order TSA to abandon its Salvationist understanding of ‘abstinence’ than it can order an Orthodox Jewish synagogue not to separate its congregants by sex. …

“It is now undisputed that ARCs are TSA’s residential churches, and that their mission is to bring beneficiaries into a closer relationship with God. TSA aims to achieve this mission by requiring ARC beneficiaries to live as Salvationists, even if they are not (or not yet) believers. It hopes that, through ‘abstinence and the power of God unto salvation,’ beneficiaries will successfully rehabilitate — and will live the good life, as Salvationists understand it. … On this record, it is not a fair inference to characterize the ARCs as merely a housing program backed by a religious institution or even a treatment program staffed by people motivated by their religious beliefs. (The record shows that TSA runs such programs — but ARCs occupy a unique, evangelical and nonmedical position within TSA’s programming.) On this record, Plaintiffs challenge the doctrinal substance of TSA’s evangelical message of ‘abstinence’ and the rules of conduct it enforces in its houses of worship. In this setting, the First Amendment shields TSA’s religious doctrine from this governmental interference. …

“Because Plaintiffs’ claim for injunctive relief would require the Court to evaluate (and potentially invalidate) TSA’s religious doctrine, the First Amendment forecloses Plaintiffs’ claims, and summary judgment for TSA is required.”

Tassinari, et al. v. The Salvation Army (Lawyers Weekly No. 02-337-26) (20 pages) (Sorokin, J.) (Civil No. 21-10806-LTS) (July 6, 2026).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.