Federal judge rules against Philadelphia supervised drug consumption effort

A federal judge this week dealt a major and likely decisive blow to Safehouse, a Philadelphia nonprofit seeking to open a facility for supervised drug consumption.

In a ruling on Wednesday, U.S. District Court Judge Gerald McHugh dismissed the nonprofit’s lawsuit, concluding that Safehouse was not a religious entity and therefore could not claim exemptions to drug laws under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Safehouse’s efforts date back to at least early 2018, when local officials in Philadelphia, a city long at the epicenter of the country’s overdose crisis, first granted the nonprofit permission to open a supervised consumption site. But the Trump administration responded almost immediately by threatening, and then filing, a civil lawsuit meant to prevent the facility from opening.

The Biden administration inherited the case in January 2021 and continued to pursue it, despite short-lived hopes from some activists that a left-leaning administration might take a more sympathetic stance.

McHugh wrote that he had delayed his ruling to allow the federal government and Safehouse a chance to negotiate and potentially reach a settlement. But “negotiation has not produced an agreement to allow Safehouse to operate as intended,” he wrote. Consequently, McHugh dismissed Safehouse’s counterclaim against the federal government. Safehouse is “not a religious entity” despite claiming its work is informed by Judeo-Christian beliefs, the judge wrote, meaning the organization is still subject to federal laws prohibiting supervised drug consumption.

Research shows that supervised consumption sites, sometimes referred to as “safe injection” facilities, are associated with a reduction in overdose rates, all-cause mortality, and other drug related harms. But even as over 80,000 Americans die of opioid overdoses each year, supervised consumption sites have failed to gain traction as a harm-reduction tactic — not just in conservative areas, but in cities and states dominated by Democrats, too.

In California, Gov. Gavin Newsom in 2022 vetoed a bill that would have allowed for the opening of several supervised consumption facilities across the state. Pennsylvania’s state legislature has considered banning supervised consumption outright, and Philadelphia’s city council also voted in September to ban supervised consumption outright in nine out of 10 city districts.

Despite the federal ban, a handful of supervised consumption sites continue to operate or move forward with plans to open, including two in Manhattan run by the nonprofit OnPoint and another in Rhode Island.

STAT’s coverage of chronic health issues is supported by a grant from Bloomberg Philanthropies. Our financial supporters are not involved in any decisions about our journalism.