Taylor Ross Jacobs #0011133, Plaintiff, v. Rutherford County, Defendant, No. 3:23-cv-00858 (U.S. Dist. Ct. M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division, August 28, 2023.)

The Court cannot mandate faith based treatment if a secular option does not exist. This case involves a pending 1983 action.

The defendant agreed to enter drug court and attend recommended treatment if the treatment did not have a religious component. The defendant entered residential as a condition of entry into the court. Upon completion of residential treatment defendant enter the drug court and began treatment that required participation in self-help meetings. The only meeting deemed to meet drug court conditions were AA Meetings. During both courses of treatment, the defendant expressed his objection to attending treatment that was religious in nature. After seven weeks, the defendant was terminated from drug court for reasons that were unclear. The court found that the drug court’s actions constitute a colorable claim that the drug court violated the First Amendment Establishment clause under Section 1983.

Cox v. Miller, 296 F.3d 89, 89 (2d Cir. 2002)

Holding that a confession to murder in an AA meeting was not protected by cleric-congregant privilege, despite 5th step requiring participant to admit to God, other human beings, and themselves the exact nature of their wrongs.

U.S. v. Schwensow, 151 F.3d 650 (7th Cir. 1998)

AA volunteer phone operators, were not counselors or therapists.

State v. Boobar, 637 A.2d 1162 (Me. 1994)

Under Maine evidentiary privilege statute, therapist-patient privilege not apply to AA peer group sessions.