State: Washington
Description: A class action lawsuit was filed by the ACLU of Washington against Whatcom County for denying incarcerated individuals’ access to their MOUD. Their complaint alleged that defendants violated the ADA.
Outcome: The case was settled and Whatcom County was required to implement written policies for Medically Assisted Withdrawal (MAW), MAT Maintenance, and MAT Induction. They were also required to implement trainings on proper MAT protocols.
Key Quote(s): “Many corrections officials incorrectly believe that MAT “replace[s] one addiction with another” and allows people who are incarcerated to get high. . .These beliefs are not accurate. The National Institute on Drug Abuse clearly states that “[m]ethadone and buprenorphine DO NOT substitute one addiction for another.””
State: Maine
Description: The plaintiff, who had been undergoing MAT for 10 years and whose last relapse was 5 years ago, was given a 40-day sentence at Aroostook County Jail and was prohibited from taking her prescribed buprenorphine. The plaintiff’s complaint asserted that ACJ violated the ADA.
Outcome: The court granted the plaintiff’s motion and ACJ was required to provide her the prescribed buprenorphine.
Key Quote(s): 1) “With the help of her medication, Ms. Smith has been in active recovery for her opioid use disorder for approximately ten years. During that time, Smith has regained custody of her four children, secured stable housing for her family, and obtained employment.”
2) “In 2014, Ms. Smith was incarcerated in the York County Jail . . . she was not allowed to continue taking her daily prescription of Suboxone. Tr. 53:18-23. Ms. Smith describes her ensuing withdrawal as the worst pain she has ever endured and recalls experiencing suicidal thoughts for the first time in her life.”
State: Massachusetts
Description: The Massachusetts Parole Board mandated that all parolees with OUD take Vivitrol (long-acting naltrexone). They would not consider individualized treatment plans and did not consult treatment recommendations from individuals’ healthcare providers. The board denied that this was not compliant with ADA regulations.
Outcome: The case was settled, and the board was required to offer individual’s specialized addiction treatment plans after consulting with a qualified addiction specialist.
Key Quote(s): 1) “The Parole Board shall not, however, express a preference for, or mandate, one medication over another for those individuals whose individualized assessment resulted in a recommendation that included more than one medication option.”
2) “The Parole Board may require that parolees with SUD comply with the treatment recommendations of their qualified addiction specialist as a condition of parole.”
State: New York
Description: Plaintiffs M.C. and T.G were both receiving daily treatment for OUD before their incarceration at Jefferson Correctional. Both were denied access to treatment during their detention. They argue that denying this treatment was a violation of the ADA and the 8th and 14th Amendments. This was a class action lawsuit on behalf of all non-pregnant individuals entering Jefferson Correctional with existing prescriptions for agonist MOUD.
Outcome: Motion in favor of the plaintiffs.
Key Quote(s): “Plaintiffs’ evidence establishes that OUD is a chronic brain disease and that opioid withdrawal has been recognized as an “objectively” serious medical condition by other courts in this Circuit.”
State: New Jersey
Description: This was a general complaint filed by the United States alleging that the Cumberland County Department of Corrections was failing to provide adequate mental health treatment and suicide prevention measures. Of their eleven factual allegations, two directly address the provision of MOUD.
Outcome: Both parties committed to an Agreement intending to remedy the conditions in Cumberland County’s institutions.
Key Quote(s): 1) “The Defendants also acted with deliberate indifference by categorically denying [MAT] to individuals in their custody suffering from [OUD] from at least 2014 through 2020. During that time, at least six incarcerated persons died by suicide at the Jail after it either denied or failed to provide them access to MAT.”
2) “In February 2020, the Defendants, after receiving grant funding, maintained that the Jail began providing MAT to individuals in their custody who experienced or risked experiencing opiate withdrawal symptoms. However, the Defendants’ grant for the MAT program is time-limited, and continues through June 2023. Whether the Defendants will receive additional funding to continue the MAT program at the Jail beyond June 2023 is unclear.”
State: Pennsylvania
Description: Defendants were charged with violating the ADA because a number of small Pennsylvania county courts were allegedly adopting illegal policies that prevented people with OUD from accessing their medication while in court-operated drug treatment programs. The UJS attempted to have the motion dismissed.
Outcome: The case was settled in 2024. The Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts recommended that judicial districts implement a policy specific to the treatment of OUD.
Key Quote(s): “Within 60 days of the Effective Date, the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts will recommend and encourage all judicial districts to adopt—as an addendum to their policy implementing the Americans with Disabilities Act—the attached Policy (see Exhibit 1) regarding medication to treat OUD. . .Within six months of the Effective Date, the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts will report to the United States on the steps taken to recommend and encourage all judicial districts to adopt the Policy, and on which counties agreed to adopt the Policy.”