Safehouse attorneys in court say the Philly nonprofit has a religious right to open a supervised drug consumption site

A Philadelphia nonprofit argued in federal court on Monday that it has a religious right to open a place for people to consume illicit drugs under medical supervision in order to save lives amid a devastating overdose crisis.

Safehouse, whose board members include faith leaders from around Philadelphia, argues that the federal government is infringing upon members’ religious beliefs by barring them from opening a supervised drug-consumption site.

Prosecutors from the U.S. Attorney’s Office say the group would violate a federal law that bans the operation of a space for people to use drugs, colloquially known as the “crackhouse statute.”

At the hearing, prosecutors said Safehouse is not specifically religious and therefore cannot assert a religious right to prevent overdoses. The group can provide other services to people who use drugs without violating federal law, they said.

The hearing was the latest development in a years-long battle over a controversial proposal to address an opioid epidemic that last year killed 1,412 people in Philadelphia. The federal government sued in 2019, soon after Safehouse first proposed to make Philadelphia home to the nation’s first supervised drug-consumption site.

Even if Safehouse prevails in court, the concept faces political opposition from city and state leaders. Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro has said he does not support the sites. In September, the City Council banned supervised injection sites in nine of the city’s 10 council districts. The idea has drawn significant opposition from several neighborhood organizations in the city, including many in Kensington, where overdose deaths are highest and where drug use is most visible.

In its initial legal filings, Safehouse said that it was not encouraging drug use but providing lifesaving medical care for people with addiction. The organization also argued that its board holds sincere religious beliefs that require them to shelter people who use drugs and monitor them as they do so in order to intervene in overdoses, which can kill in seconds without medical care.

The nonprofit initially did not pursue the religious freedom claim in its court appearances. Instead, they said the “crackhouse statute” does not prohibit medically supervised drug consumption. Federal Judge Gerald A. McHugh ruled in Safehouse’s favor, but an appeals court later struck down theruling down. Safehouse then returned to court on the religious freedom claim.

The group’s months-long settlement talks with federal prosecutors broke down earlier this year. On Monday, McHugh again heard arguments from Safehouse attorneys and federal prosecutors, who asked him to dismiss Safehouse’s claim.

“An explicitly non-religious organization — run by a dozen unrelated members who all have different religious backgrounds — is asserting a singular religious right on its behalf,” said assistant U.S. Attorney Erin Lindgren. “On this basis alone, you can grant the government’s motion to dismiss.” She also suggested that Safehouse’s motivation to prevent overdoses was not religious, but based in medical and public health concerns.

Safehouse attorney Ilana Eisenstein said the nonprofit’s mission is deeply rooted in its board members’ Jewish and Christian faiths. She said the federal government has exempted privately held corporations, like the crafting chain Hobby Lobby, from certain laws on the basis of religious beliefs.

“The government has said it’s not a tenet of any religion to provide supervised injection sites. No one is standing here pleading that,” she said. “The overdose prevention model is an exercise of beliefs — part of the core tenants of the Judeo-Christian traditions of [Safehouse] board members.”

McHugh questioned whether Safehouse’s mission is explicitly religious. He noted that Safehouse board members have said their religions require them to save lives in the opioid crisis, but asked whether invoking religious values would “then convert everything we do into an exercise of faith?”

Eisenstein said that providing shelter to people who use drugs is “an important component of our religious exercise.” She said that Safehouse supports other measures to help people with addiction — like providing them with clean syringes to prevent disease and helping them seek treatment.

But, she said, many people who seek out those services are still forced to use drugs alone, putting them at risk of a deadly overdose.

“People are dying on our watch,” she said.

Two supervised injection sites have been operating in New York for over a year, without federal interference, a fact noted by McHugh and Safehouse’s attorney. The National Institute on Drug Abuse has funded a $5 million grant to study supervised injection sites in New York and Rhode Island. The latter is the only state whose governor has signed legislation to legalize the sites.

“The government is putting its head in the ground on the facts of the case and refusing to recognize what it itself is doing — which is engaging in a research project on the efficacy of supervised consumption,” Eisenstein said.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Brian Hughes said federal law allows for research to learn more about illicit drugs and solutions to addiction.

Outside the courthouse, a handful of protesters who gathered before the hearing said they supported supervised drug consumption sites.

“If they don’t open up a safe injection site soon, I’m pretty sure someone is going to do it anyway,” said Ed Nicodemus, a member of South Philly Punks with Lunch, which regularly provides meals to people with addiction.

Samm Pheiffer, a member of the advocacy group Positive Women’s Network, which supports women living with HIV, said that the group has been knocking doors in the city’s 11th Ward in North Philadelphia, and found more than 1,000 people who support a site opening.

However, opponents including neighborhood groups in Kensington have said they are concerned a site would enable drug use, and that city officials and Safehouse representatives left them out of settlement talks earlier this year.

McHugh said he will return with a decision “sooner rather than later” on whether to dismiss the case.