Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/404286882/U-S-v-Safehouse-Safehouse-v-United-States-of-America-and-DOJ
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 14:45:39+00:00

Document:
medical assistance is available. Tragically, for thousands help arrived too late or not at all.
https://www.phila.gov/media/20181220135006/Health-of-the-City-2018.pdf (last visited Apr. 2, 2019).
found to increase drug injecting, drug trafficking or crime in the surrounding environments”).
Attorney, who all see the critical need for this intervention.
are suffering from substance use disorder does not and constitutionally cannot violate Section 856.
Appropriations Act, 2016 (“Appropriations Act of 2016”), Pub. L. No. 114-113, § 520, 129 Stat.
Section 856 in any analogous circumstance.
legitimate—indeed, critical—medical and public health intervention.
by federal law, they are expressly endorsed by Congress and federal agencies. The U.S.
advance—not violate—federal law and policy.
circumstances, does not criminalize Safehouse’s contemplated overdose prevention services.
See CARA, § 107, 130 Stat. 703 (42 U.S.C. § 290dd-3).
but denies that Plaintiff is entitled to such relief.
than one million residents. See Pew Tr., Philadelphia’s Drug Overdose Death Rate Among Highest in Nation (Feb.
https://wonder.cdc.gov/ucd-icd10.html (last visited Apr. 2, 2019).
Safehouse, Frequently Asked Questions, https://www.safehousephilly.org/about/faqs (last visited Apr. 2, 2019).
The provision of sterile consumption equipment will reduce of the risk of transmission of infectious diseases.
encourages a dosage adjustment to a safer level.
itself. Any attempt by Plaintiff to characterize or interpret Exhibit A is therefore denied.
which no response is required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and are therefore denied.
Safehouse’s provision of overdose prevention services would not violate Section 856(a)(2).
Safehouse’s overdose prevention services would not fall within the scope of Section 856(a)(2).
operations would not violate federal law. The remainder of Paragraph 17 is denied.
speaks for itself. Any attempt by Plaintiff to characterize or interpret Exhibit B is therefore denied.
Plaintiff’s Complaint as if set forth fully herein.
which no response is required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and is therefore denied.
serious bodily injury and death.
3. The application of Section 856 to Safehouse is barred by RFRA, 42 U.S.C.
capacity as U.S. Attorney General; and William M. McSwain, in his official capacity as U.S.
includes medically supervised consumption and observation.
3. This action arises under 21 U.S.C. § 801 et seq. and 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb et seq.
seeks remedies under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202.
as the relevant events took place in this District.
the legal rights and duties of Safehouse to warrant relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2201.
DOJ is sufficiently real and imminent to warrant the issuance of a conclusive declaratory judgment.
the instant action resulting in this counterclaim.
in pursuit of its lifesaving mission.
interpretation and application of Section 856.
operational would definitively resolve that controversy for the parties.
Suite 600, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107.
12. Counterclaim Defendant is the United States of America.
13. Third-Party Defendant is the U.S. Department of Justice.
14. Third-Party Defendant William P. Barr is sued in his official capacity as U.S.
United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
emergency due to the opioid epidemic and the opioid overdose crisis.
City of Phila., Office of the Mayor, Executive Order No. 3-18 – Opioid Emergency Response Executive Order (Oct.
occur as quickly as 3-to-5 minutes from the time of consumption.
treatment. These interventions will resuscitate and keep a person alive with medical certainty.
overdose victims.20 This number has continued to increase in 2018.
https://ldi.upenn.edu/news/optimizing-heroin-users-treatable-moments-er (last visited Apr. 2, 2019).
28. Safehouse would fulfill Philadelphia’s dire need for overdose prevention services.
opioid epidemic and overdose crisis in Philadelphia.
services such as housing, public benefits, and legal services.
an opioid overdose with immediate access to medical care, including overdose reversal agents.
will not die of a drug overdose.
See Diane E. Logan & G. Alan Marlatt, Harm Reduction Therapy: A Practice-Friendly Review of Research, 66 J.
sale of illicit drugs or drug sharing at its facility.
and discarded needles and other consumption equipment.
transmitted by intravenous drug use.
9, 2018 letter is attached as Exhibit B to the Complaint.
Safehouse’s medically supervised consumption room would violate 21 U.S.C. § 856(a)(2).
U.S.C. § 856(b) and (d).
Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, Pub. L. No. 91-513, 84 Stat.
the CSA does not limit the appropriate medical response to the risk of drug overdose.
overdose with medical certainty and ensures that participants in Safehouse’s care will stay alive.
medically trained volunteers to turn their backs on patients at their most vulnerable moment.
A. The CSA Does Not Regulate Medical Treatment or Overdose Prevention Measures.
manifests no intent to regulate the practice of medicine generally.”).
empowered to administer controlled substances in accordance with its schedules and regulations.
professional practice.” See 21 C.F.R. § 1306.04.
by the CSA), with respiratory support, and by providing other lifesaving care.
activities are addressed by the CSA.
B. Federal Law Endorses and Funds Syringe Exchange Programs.
reduction strategies to address the opioid crisis.
under, and indeed, encouraged by federal law.
Https://Www.Cdc.Gov/Mmwr/Preview/Mmwrhtml/Rr6105a1.Htm (last visited Apr. 3, 2019).
close a short, but critical gap in care at the time of drug consumption.
to Naloxone to Combat the Opioid Crisis.
laws and policies that have expanded access to Naloxone and other opioid reversal agents.
and in sufficient quantity, they will reverse an otherwise fatal overdose with medical certainty.
experiencing an overdose loses consciousness and therefore cannot self-administer Naloxone.
greater the risk of serious injury and death.
respiratory support required to resuscitate that person.
funding for education and awareness campaigns and improved access to overdose treatment.
[N]aloxone, to veterans.” See id. § 911, 130 Stat. 759 (38 U.S.C. § 1701).
opioid crisis continues in Pennsylvania.
and immediately after the time of use—which is the moment when Naloxone is most needed.
Pennsylvania state law, all of which include strong measures to increase Naloxone access.
Safehouse’s proposed medical and public health response to the opioid crisis.
Medical Interventions to Prevent Drug Overdoses.
services model would be an unprecedented expansion of that discrete statutory provision.
effort[t]s.” 132 Cong. Rec. S26473 (daily ed. Sept. 26, 1986).
raid these crack houses, the dealers and users can easily dispose of the drugs, thus avoiding arrest.
This bill makes it a felony to operate such a house, to be present at the house.” See 132 Cong.
Rec. at S26447 (statement of Sen. Chiles).
Drug Anti-Proliferation Act of 2003 (“2003 Amendment”), Pub. L. No. 108-21, 117 Stat. 691.
lifesaving care, as Safehouse now proposes to do.
volunteer support) who are not dispensing, prescribing, or distributing controlled substances.
under Section 856’s express exemption.
complications from opioid use disorder.
access to lifesaving medical care to those at high risk of overdose death.
removes its proposed activities from Section 856’s scope.
D. The CSA Does Not Define “Unlawful . . . Use” of Controlled Substances.
“unlawfully manufacturing, storing, distributing, or using a controlled substance.” 21 U.S.C.
unauthorized manufacture, storage, or distribution of controlled substances (see generally id.
as a whole what “unlawful . . . us[e]” means.
the purpose of enabling access to a critical medical intervention.
E. The Rule of Lenity Forecloses the DOJ’s Expansive Interpretation of Section 856.
several canons of construction, including the rule of lenity and the clear statement canon.
1088 (2015) (citation omitted); see United States v. Flemming, 617 F.3d 252 (3d Cir. 2010).
that Congress should have spoken in language that is clear and definite.” United States v.
Universal C.I.T. Credit Corp., 344 U.S. 218, 221–22 (1952); Yates, 135 S. Ct. at 1089.
100. The phrases “except as authorized by,” “for the purpose of,” and “unlawful. . .
Safehouse’s proposed overdose prevention services.
words ‘in their context and with a view to their place in the overall statutory scheme.’” King v.
when placed in context.’” Id. (citation omitted).
health intervention to prevent overdose deaths, much less do so unambiguously.
to a continuum of overdose prevention and harm reduction services. See Food & Drug Admin. v.
BALANCE BETWEEN FEDERAL AND STATE AUTHORITY.
the bounds of Congress’s constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce.
107. Congress lacks a general police power. See United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S.
v. United States, 572 U.S. 844, 854 (2014).
Bond, 572 U.S. at 853–54.
518 U.S. 470, 475 (1996)).
create a general police power for Congress.
is not activity that is economic in nature.
proposed conduct and interstate commerce.
studies show that medically supervised consumption sites actually reduce drug use.
explicit connection with or effect on interstate commerce.
proposed model affects interstate commerce. In particular, while Congress found in 21 U.S.C.
“use” is therefore of doubtful constitutionality.
and policy. Safehouse attempts to employ such a solution to a pressing local health crisis.
efforts to mitigate the opioid crisis.
and by clinically sound data.
such as the regulation of volunteer medical treatment.
any clear indication that Congress intended to thwart the traditional rights of States and localities.
“manifests no intent to regulate the practice of medicine generally.” Oregon, 546 U.S. at 270.
(formerly known as Biblical Theological Seminary).
in living out that faith and those teachings.
Pennsylvania, has been an exercise in living out that faith and those teachings.
schooling, their devout families, and their practices of worship.
human life is paramount and overrides any other considerations.
sheds blood.” Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah 336:1.
of your neighbor: I am the Lord.” Leviticus 19:16.
to cast a stone.” John 8:7-11.
speech but in deed and truth.” 1 John 3:16-18.
“[b]ear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.” Galatians 6:2.
the current overdose crisis, and thus to establish and run Safehouse in accordance with these tenets.
everything possible to care for the sick.
beliefs and conformity with the DOJ’s interpretation of Section 856.
RFRA to prove that it does.
decrease because some of its beneficiaries will seek and be provided with drug treatment.
distributing, or using a controlled substance.
21 U.S.C. § 856(a) (emphases added).
136. Safehouse will not make its premises available “for the purpose of unlawfully . . .
complications from substance use disorder.
prohibited under 21 U.S.C. § 856.
General from enforcing 21 U.S.C. § 856 against Safehouse.
Violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb et seq.
operate Safehouse as described above in this Counterclaim, as they are called to do.
furtherance of a compelling governmental interest.
by RFRA, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb et seq.
been and will continue to be harmed.
with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system.
Notice will be sent to all CM/ECF registrants in this action via the CM/ECF system.

References: § 520
 § 107
 § 290
 § 801
 § 2000
 § 2201
 § 856
 § 856
 § 1306
 § 911
 § 1701
 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v.

 v. 

v. 
 § 856
 § 856
 § 856
 § 2000
 § 2000