Court Ordered 12-Step Meetings: A Violation of the First Amendment?

For years now, judges and counselors have been referring people to 12-Step Meetings such as Alcoholics Anonymous (AA), Narcotics Anonymous (NA) and in more recent years, Celebrate Recovery (CR). Anyone who works in the alcohol and drug treatment field knows what “90 in 90” means. People in trouble for alcohol and drugs are often advised (and sometimes ordered) to attend 90 of these support meetings in 90 consecutive days.

Drug Court programs across the country typically require some type of attendance at these support meetings. Treatment programs nearly always recommend clients attend meetings while engaged in and after completion of treatment.  In Oklahoma, the Department of Public Safety even requires some high level DUI offenders attend “mutual support meetings” as a condition of license reinstatement.

Some of those requirements could be changing. While some argue that AA has no religious aspects, five of the 12 steps make direct reference to God. The National Drug Court Institute lists several cases indicating that “mandating [an] individual to Alcoholics Anonymous/Narcotics Anonymous (AA/NA) is a violation of the First Amendment.

Some courts have started offering non-religious alternatives to AA and NA such as Smart Recovery. Others have simply eliminated the support meeting requirement altogether. While this may be welcome news for some of the “old timers” who openly criticize those who come to meetings “just to get their paper signed”, it has the potential to significantly reduce the number of people put in contact with AA.

How many current AA or NA members were initially “court ordered” to attend the meetings? Of course no one can know for sure but one AA organization acknowledges that “many of us were sent to our first AA meetings by judges”. While AA is now an international organization with an estimated two million members in over 170 countries, the majority of its membership comes from the United States and Canada.

These actions could ultimately impact some treatment facilities. While some providers have embraced newer evidence based models of treatment, many still adhere to what is known as the Minnesota Model. The Minnesota Model blends (sometimes heavily) the principles of AA into a clinical treatment experience. Many of these facilities receive State funding and court ordered clients and as a result, could also be in violation of the First Amendment.

I’m conflicted over the matter because while I’ve seen the promises of AA at work in many lives. I’ve also seen those turned away by the religious aspects of the organization. In reality, I think many are turned away by the negative “my way or the highway” attitudes of a few members who apparently missed some of the core principles of the program. Some may argue the programs would be strengthened without court ordered referrals.

While working at a residential treatment facility, we transported clients to off-site AA meetings twice a week. They were “open meetings” that allowed those of us without alcohol problems to attend. Our clients, some with alcohol and some with drug problems, were allowed to attend and participate in the meetings. I learned a great deal about life and living sitting in those meetings and listening to the stories of experience, strength and hope.

I know (as do millions of others) that the program lays out a set of principles for living that simply work. Unfortunately, those principles are often distorted and/or presented in a manner that excludes many who need them most. AA and NA have long suffered from one of the same problems as organized religion, poor representation by purported followers. It looks like they may now be faced with a declining number of new referrals. Whether that works to strengthen or damage the organizations remains to be seen.