Church Autonomy Doctrine Prevents Review of Salvation Army's Ban on Certain Methadone Treatments in Its Rehab Centers

In Tassinari v. The Salvation Army, (D MA, July 6, 2026), a Massachusetts federal district court dismissed claims that The Salvation Army (TSA) violated the federal Rehabilitation Act and the Fair Housing Act when it denied plaintiffs residing in its Adult Rehabilitation Centers (ARCs) access to certain medications for their opioid use disorder. The Salvation Army disallowed treatment with methadone or buprenorphine because they are addictive narcotics, even though they have been approved by the FDA as Medications for Opioid Use Disorder (MOUD) and are not addictive when used in treatment. The court said in part:

TSA’s primary argument is that the church-autonomy doctrine shields its Medication Policy from government regulation and judicial scrutiny.... Specifically, TSA argues it is entitled to summary judgment because adjudication of this case involves matters of “faith and doctrine” that the First Amendment places beyond the ken of civil courts.... The undisputed facts establish that ARCs are residential churches with an evangelical mission in which Salvationist doctrine—including the prohibition on use of narcotics as MOUDs— determines the message TSA preaches and the rules by which beneficiaries must abide.  The relief the Injunction Class Plaintiffs seek would require the Court to evaluate and potentially invalidate TSA’s religious doctrine.  The First Amendment bars the Court’s interference in the challenged portions of TSA’s Medication Policy, and TSA is entitled to summary judgment....

TSA’s rehabilitation-through-conversion program requires beneficiaries to both engage in Salvationist practices—weekly chapel services and Bible studies, biweekly spiritual counseling, and daily devotions—and adhere to Salvationist rules—including the Medication Policy’s prohibition on use of narcotic MOUDs....  TSA sincerely believes, as a core tenet of Salvationist doctrine, that “abstinence and the power of God unto salvation” is the “only form of successful rehabilitation,” and that the long-term use of narcotics—including methadone and buprenorphine—to treat addiction is not true rehabilitation....

9th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments In Title VII Case Against Salvation Army

On Tuesday, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in Garcia v. Salvation Army (video of full arguments). In the case, an Arizona federal district court dismissed a Title VII religious discrimination claim brought against the Salvation Army. Plaintiff claimed that she was subjected to discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment after she stopped attending Salvation Army services.  The court held that Title VII's religious organization exemption applies and that the Salvation Army did not waive the defense by failing to assert it as an affirmative defense. (See prior posting.) [Thanks to John Jackson for the lead.]

Title VII's Religious Organization Exemption Protects Salvation Army

In Garcia v. Salvation Army, (D AZ, Sept. 12, 2016), an Arizona federal district court dismissed a Title VII religious discrimination claim brought against the Salvation Army by a former social services coordinator for the organization.  Plaintiff claimed that she was subjected to discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment after she stopped attending services at the Salvation Army’s Estrella Mountain Corps where she was employed.  The court held that Title VII's religious organization exemption applies to plaintiff's claim, and that the Salvation Army did not waive the defense by failing to assert it as an affirmative defense.

Salvation Army Settles Suit Challenging Its Religious Mandates To Government Funded Social Service Workers

The New York Civil Liberties Union announced the approval yesterday of a settlement in Lowe v. The Salvation Army, a 10-year old lawsuit on behalf of 19 Salvation Army employees, including two who claim they were fired in retaliation for protesting the imposition of religious requirements on employees paid with government grant money.  A 2003 national reorganization plan by the Salvation Army led to blurring the separation between the organization's government-funded social service programs that employ some 300 people in New York, and its religious mission.  It began to require employees paid with government funds to give information on their religious affiliation and frequency of church attendance, and to commit themselves to providing social services in a manner consistent with the Christian religious principles of the Salvation Army.

In 2010 the NYCLU settled claims against government agencies that had also been sued.  They agreed to monitor the Salvation Army to make sure it does not impose religion on recipients of government-funded social services. In yesterday's settlement, the Salvation Army agreed to provide employees in government-funded positions with a document indicating that it abides by equal employment opportunity provisions as to creed and sexual orientation, will not inquire into employees' religious beliefs, and requires its employees to furnish social services using sound practices without regard to whether they conflict with Salvation Army religious principles. However employees may not undermine the Salvation Army's religious mission. In the settlement, the Salvation Army will also pay $450,000 for damages and attorneys' fees. Newsmax reports on the settlement.