AA Violates U.S.
Constitution

Numerous cases are decided each year ruling AA
"religious," but none have affected persons other than the plaintiff. Here are some recent court actions that show an
encouraging trend:

.On February 4, 1998, the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission ruled that the Federal Aviation Administration had
violated a pilot's rights by requiring him to attend meetings of Alcoholics
Anonymous as a condition of retaining his professional license. The offending agency is required to publicly post a
message declaring that Alcoholics Anonymous is religious in character and no
one may be required to attend 12-step meetings by mandate, intimidation or by
lack of choice. A similar ruling was handed down in
April, 1998, in Manning v. United Airlines, declaring the
employer failed to accommodate an employee's religious beliefs.

.On November 10, 1997, The Supreme Court
of Tennessee ruled in Evans vs. The Board of Paroles that cases
involving coercion into the 12-step program of Alcoholics Anonymous
"indisputably raise the question of establishment of religion. Ruling AA "religious," the court reversed a lower
court's support of the Parole Board's requirement that Evans
participate in the 12-step program. The judges stated,
"Cases involving coercion into the 12-step program of Alcoholics Anonymous
indisputably raise the question of establishment of religion."
The Evans appeal was remanded to the lower court to be
decided upon the ruling that AA is religious.

. On June 11, 1996, the New York Court of Appeals ruled, in Griffin vs.Coughlin
that the substance abuse program then in use by the New York Department of
Corrections was unconstitutional because, "after a fair reading of
the doctrinal literature of Alcoholics Anonymous, [the 12-step program was
found to be] unequivocally religious." When
mandated or forced in any way, 12-step participation is a violation of the most
fundamental rights guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution. This
was a landmark case that immediately affects all fifty states, in the sense
that citizens may petition in their state courts for declaratory relief from
laws and regulations supporting mandated 12-step participation. This decision may be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court,
due to its pivotal role in the future structuring of American society. It represents a much-needed shift in social policy toward
what Rational Recovery years ago named "The Post-Treatment Era." It is comforting to note that case law for over a
decade has consistently identified the 12-step spiritual healing program of
Alcoholics Anonymous as being "religious," giving strong odds that
the same would hold true in the nation's highest court.

. In August, 1996, The U.S.
Court of Appeals, Seventh District ruled, in Kerr vs. Lind,
et. al., that because AA is religious, an
inmate's rights were violated when privileges and consideration for parole were
withdrawn as a direct result of his refusal to participate in 12-step meetings. This closely followed the New York
decision, above, in content and in time.

. In a 1994 case in federal court (O'Connor
vs. Orange
County
and the State of California),
AA was found to be "religious," and the State of California
must now offer alternatives to 12-step programs in any state-funded or mandated
program. Rational Recovery was identified as an
acceptable alternative in that decision, but the State has ignored the ruling
by failing to inform citizens of their right to refuse 12-step participation. Most judges know that the penalties provided by law are
more effective than "addiction treatment," but overcrowded dockets
and jails, and political consideration of the 12-step community have created a
fertile arena for recovery group recruitment in that state.

. In the same year, California State Employees
Association vs. The California Youth Authority resulted in a similar
decision. All materials from the publishing arm of
Alcoholics Anonymous, Hazelden Publications, were
ordered out of CYA classrooms, and each incarcerated ward of CYA had a decree
of his right to refuse 12-step participation posted in his living quarters. In a subseqent 1995 review of
the case, it was tossed out by another judge who called it "a tempest in a
teapot."

. In 1994, a man in New York
convicted of drunk driving was sentenced to AA as an alternative to
imprisonment. In Warner vs. Orange County
Department of Probation, he prevailed in a decision finding the
defendant guilty of violating the First Amendment by "coercing the
plaintiff to participate in religious exercises, an act which tends towards the
establishment of a state religious faith."

There is a consistend trend in the
lower courts to identify AA as religious, based on the content of the program
and using The Big Book and Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions as
exhibits.

back
to drugs and alcohol home front