Federal Judge Upholds Salvation Army’s Methadone Ban in Rehab Centers
Judge Sorokin ruled in Tassinari v. The Salvation Army that banning methadone is constitutionally protected.
Why it matters: The ruling clarifies how religious free speech rights intersect with patient medication access, affecting compliance and patient care protocols for faith-based treatment programs.
- On July 6, 2026, U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin ruled in the District of Massachusetts for the Salvation Army.
- The court affirmed First Amendment protections for the Salvation Army’s methadone ban based on religious beliefs.
- The policy bans about 60 medications, including FDA-approved methadone and buprenorphine, used to treat opioid addiction.
- Two plaintiff classes were certified in March 2025: one seeking injunctive relief (policy change) and one for damages related to medication discharges.
On July 6, 2026, U.S. District Judge Leo T. Sorokin of the District of Massachusetts ruled in Tassinari v. The Salvation Army that the organization’s ban on methadone use in its Adult Rehabilitation Centers (ARCs) is protected by the First Amendment.
The court recognized that the Salvation Army’s religious beliefs oppose intoxicants, leading it to ban approximately 60 medications—including methadone and buprenorphine, both FDA-approved treatments for opioid use disorder. The judge emphasized that courts avoid interpreting religious doctrine, reinforcing protections for faith-based policies.
The Salvation Army operates 29 ARCs in the eastern U.S., providing housing and recovery services to individuals with substance use disorders. Its Medication Policy reflects its religious stance by prohibiting these medications during treatment stays lasting six to twelve months.
Two plaintiff classes were certified in March 2025: one seeking injunctive relief (court-ordered changes to the policy) for individuals prescribed methadone or buprenorphine wanting ARC participation, and another for damages on behalf of people discharged due to medication use. They alleged violations under the Rehabilitation Act and Fair Housing Act.
This ruling clarifies how constitutional protections for religious organizations apply to medication policies, balancing faith-based free speech and patients’ healthcare access rights in rehabilitation settings.
Legal observers note this case illustrates the challenges in regulating faith-based treatment programs and the potential limits on mandated use of FDA-approved opioid treatments within such contexts.
By the numbers:
- 29 Adult Rehabilitation Centers operated by the Salvation Army in the eastern U.S.
- Approximately 60 medications banned under the Salvation Army’s Medication Policy.
- Two plaintiff classes certified in March 2025 for injunctive relief and damages.
Yes, but: The ruling protects religious expression but leaves unresolved questions about patient medical access in faith-based rehab, prompting potential future litigation.
What's next: Appeals to the First Circuit Court of Appeals are expected, which could further define legal boundaries for medication policies in faith-based treatment programs.