CV09-58-N-EJL (D. Idaho 9-11-2009)
Where claimant originally asked to go to facility that used AA, and never notified his probation officer of his religious objection to going to AA meetings, no First Amendment violation
542 F. Supp. 2d 683, 683 (E.D. Mich. 2008)
Holding that the drug court program manager and the drug court consultant were liable for actions related to referral to faith based program, when they knew of participant’s objections while in the program, and when the program denied the participant the opportunity to practice his chosen faith – Catholicism
509 F.3d 406, 406 (8th Cir. 2007)
Holding that a state supported non-coercive, non-rewarding faith based program violated the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution because an alternative was not available
70 F. Supp. 2d 47, 49 (D.N.H. 1999)
Injunctive relief was moot remedy and damages barred by immunity, when defendant sought order barring defendants from conditioning early release or parole on a prisoner's attendance at AA-based programs, and forcing defendants to recognize Rational Recovery as a viable alternative to AA-based programs.
95 F.3d 472, 479-80 (7th Cir. 1996)
Holding that the prison violated the Establishment Clause by requiring attendance at Narcotics Anonymous meetings which used “God” in its treatment approach
