INTRODUCTION

The question in this case is whether to allow the judiciary’s power over probation to be used to jail addicted individuals on the grounds that they have relapsed. Without any legislative mandate and at the urging of no executive official, a probation officer requested and a judge ordered Julie Eldred to be sent to jail after she tested positive for fentanyl. It is undisputed that Ms. Eldred suffers from substance use disorder. And it is equally undisputed that countless others who suffer from this disease will continue to face the threat of imprisonment if trial courts are permitted to impose a condition of probation that requires them to remain drug free.

For two reasons, this Court should disallow that condition in cases involving addiction. First, it is contrary to this Court’s precedents, which protect probationers from being saddled with conditions that they cannot reasonably be expected to achieve. This Court held in Commonwealth v. Henry that an individual cannot be required to pay a restitution amount that she cannot afford. 475 Mass. 117, 122 (2016). It has also held that a homeless person who lacked access to the necessary electrical outlet could not therefore be found to have violated a condition of his probation requiring electronic monitoring. Commonwealth v. Canadyan, 458 Mass. 574, 578-79 (2010).

The reasoning of those cases controls here. Because addicted individuals cannot reasonably be expected to remain drug free, they may not be required to do so as a condition of probation.

Second, even if precedent did not resolve this case, this Court should use its superintendence power to prohibit requiring addicted probationers to remain drug free, because imposing that condition is dangerous and unjust. Probation is a judicial function, and this Court may exercise its supervisory power to ensure that it is not used unjustly.

That intervention is warranted here because allowing courts to require that individuals suffering from addiction remain drug free – however well- intentioned – harms both probationers and the integrity of the justice system. It predictably leads to the imprisonment of untold numbers of addicted individuals simply because they stumble on their road to recovery. It interrupts their treatment and imperils lives. It also creates disparate impacts on poor communities and people of color, and contributes to the worst excesses of the ill-fated War on Drugs.

The Commonwealth seeks a contrary result. It argues that courts may require Ms. Eldred and other individuals who suffer from addiction to remain drug free as a condition of their probation, and may revoke their probation and imprison them if they relapse. It reasons that addiction does not “completely eliminate[]” someone’s ability to choose not to use drugs. Two amicus briefs supporting the Commonwealth’s position also contend that people with addiction retain the ability to make choices, and may be punished with a revocation of probation when they use drugs. Morse Br. at 20-30; NADCP Br. at 17-26. But the existence of some degree of “choice” does not make it just for the courts to create and administer a regime that routinely cages people for failing to resoundingly defeat a disease.

More fundamentally, the metaphysics of the free will and choices made by people suffering from addiction is not the issue here. The primary question here is what choice this Court will make about the lives of addicted individuals. It can choose the path that will incarcerate many of them, interrupt their treatment, and endanger their lives. It is the path the compounds inequality and makes probation an instrument of the War on Drugs. Or it can strike a different course, preventing probation from being used to imprison addicted individuals for drug use. That is the path that will prevent injustice and save lives.

ISSUE PRESENTED

Whether this Court should allow Massachusetts judges to require individuals who suffer from addiction to remain drug free as a condition of their probation, thereby permitting revocation of their probation and possible incarceration if they violate that condition.

INTRODUCTION

The central issue concerns the judicial authority to imprison individuals with substance use disorder for relapsing while on probation. In one instance, a probation officer sought and a judge approved the jailing of Julie Eldred after a positive fentanyl test, despite the absence of a legislative directive or executive request. Ms. Eldred's substance use disorder is acknowledged, as is the ongoing threat of imprisonment for many others if courts continue to mandate a drug-free condition for probationers with this disease.

This condition should not be allowed for individuals with addiction for two main reasons. First, it conflicts with established legal precedents of this Court. These precedents safeguard probationers from conditions that are not reasonably achievable. For example, the Court has ruled that individuals cannot be ordered to pay restitution they cannot afford (Commonwealth v. Henry). Similarly, a homeless person without access to electricity could not be found in violation of an electronic monitoring condition (Commonwealth v. Canadyan). The principles from these cases apply directly: if individuals with addiction cannot realistically be expected to remain drug-free, then such a requirement should not be imposed as a condition of probation.

Second, even without direct precedent, the Court should use its supervisory authority to ban the drug-free condition for probationers with addiction. This condition is considered dangerous and unjust. Probation falls under judicial oversight, allowing the Court to use its supervisory powers to prevent its misuse. This intervention is crucial because requiring individuals with addiction to remain drug-free, even with good intentions, harms both the probationers and the overall integrity of the justice system. Such a mandate often leads to the imprisonment of many individuals who relapse during recovery, disrupting their treatment and endangering their lives. Furthermore, it creates unfair outcomes for low-income communities and minority populations, contributing to the negative effects associated with the War on Drugs.

The Commonwealth, however, advocates for a different outcome. It asserts that courts have the authority to impose a drug-free condition on individuals with addiction, including Ms. Eldred, and to revoke probation and imprison them upon relapse. This argument suggests that addiction does not entirely remove an individual's capacity to choose not to use drugs. Supporting this view, certain legal briefs also maintain that individuals with addiction retain some ability to make choices and can therefore be sanctioned for drug use through probation revocation. However, the presence of some choice does not justify a judicial system that regularly jails individuals for struggling with a disease. The core issue is not a philosophical debate about free will in addiction. Instead, the fundamental question is the Court's decision regarding the lives of individuals with addiction. The Court can choose a path that leads to incarceration, interrupts treatment, endangers lives, increases inequality, and uses probation as a tool of the War on Drugs. Alternatively, the Court can take a different approach, preventing probation from being used to imprison individuals for drug use. This path would prevent injustice and preserve lives.

ISSUE PRESENTED

The Court must determine whether Massachusetts judges should be permitted to require individuals with addiction to remain drug-free as a condition of their probation, thereby allowing for probation revocation and potential incarceration if this condition is violated.

INTRODUCTION

The main question in this situation is whether judges should be able to use their authority over probation to jail adults with substance use disorder simply because they have relapsed. This issue arose when a judge ordered Julie Eldred to jail after she tested positive for fentanyl, even though it is understood that she suffers from this condition. Many other individuals with substance use disorder continue to face the threat of imprisonment if courts are allowed to impose probation conditions that demand they remain drug-free. This Court should disallow such a condition in cases involving addiction for two key reasons. First, this practice goes against the Court's earlier decisions, which aim to protect probationers from being given conditions they cannot realistically achieve. For example, the Court has previously ruled that a person cannot be forced to pay a restitution amount they cannot afford, nor can a homeless individual be found in violation of electronic monitoring if they lack access to the necessary power outlet.

The reasoning from those past cases is relevant here. Since individuals with substance use disorder cannot reasonably be expected to remain entirely drug-free, they should not be required to do so as a condition of probation.

Second, even if past cases did not fully resolve this matter, this Court should use its supervisory power to prevent courts from requiring addicted probationers to remain drug-free. Imposing such a condition is seen as both dangerous and unjust. Allowing courts to require individuals with addiction to stay drug-free—no matter how well-intentioned—harms both the probationers and the integrity of the justice system. This often leads to the imprisonment of many individuals who are simply struggling in their recovery journey, which interrupts their treatment and puts their lives at risk. This practice also creates unequal impacts on low-income communities and people of color, contributing to the negative consequences of past drug policies.

The Commonwealth, however, argues for a different outcome. It claims that courts can require Ms. Eldred and other individuals with addiction to remain drug-free as a probation condition and can revoke their probation, leading to imprisonment, if they relapse. The argument is that addiction does not completely remove a person's ability to choose not to use drugs. However, the fundamental issue here is not a debate about free will or individual choices. Instead, the primary question is what choice this Court will make regarding the lives of individuals with addiction. The Court can choose a path that results in incarceration for many, interrupts their treatment, and endangers their lives, while also increasing inequality. Or, it can take a different approach, preventing probation from being used to imprison individuals for drug use, a path that would prevent injustice and save lives.

ISSUE PRESENTED

The question for this Court is whether Massachusetts judges should be permitted to require individuals with substance use disorder to remain drug-free as a condition of their probation. This would then allow for their probation to be revoked and potential incarceration if they violate that condition.

Introduction

The central question in this case is whether judges should be able to use their power over probation to jail individuals suffering from addiction who relapse. An example involves Julie Eldred, who was sent to jail after testing positive for fentanyl, despite her substance use disorder. Many others with this disease could face similar imprisonment if courts are allowed to impose a probation condition that requires them to remain drug-free.

This condition should not be allowed for two main reasons. First, it goes against previous court decisions. Those decisions protect individuals on probation from conditions they cannot reasonably be expected to meet. For instance, a person could not be required to pay restitution they could not afford. Similarly, a homeless person could not be found to have violated a condition requiring electronic monitoring if they lacked access to a necessary electrical outlet. This reasoning applies here: individuals with addiction cannot realistically be expected to remain drug-free, so this should not be a probation requirement.

Second, even without past court decisions, the Court should use its power to stop this condition because it is dangerous and unfair. Allowing courts to require individuals with addiction to stay drug-free, despite good intentions, harms both the probationers and the fairness of the justice system. It often leads to the imprisonment of many addicted individuals simply for relapsing during their recovery. This interrupts their treatment, puts lives at risk, and contributes to unequal impacts on disadvantaged communities and people of color, echoing problems of the "War on Drugs."

The Commonwealth argues that addiction does not entirely remove a person's ability to choose not to use drugs, and thus, probation can be revoked for relapses. However, the presence of some "choice" does not make it fair for courts to routinely jail people for failing to overcome a disease. The key issue is not the debate over free will, but the choice the Court will make regarding the lives of individuals with addiction. The Court can choose a path that leads to incarceration, interrupted treatment, and danger, deepening inequality. Or, it can choose a different path, preventing probation from being used to imprison addicted individuals for drug use, thereby preventing injustice and saving lives.

Issue Presented

This Court must decide whether Massachusetts judges should be allowed to require individuals with addiction to remain drug-free as a condition of their probation. This decision would determine if probation can be revoked, leading to potential incarceration, if that condition is violated.

INTRODUCTION

This case asks if courts should use their power to send people with addiction to jail for using drugs again. A judge sent Julie Eldred to jail because she tested positive for fentanyl. This happened even though no law or official asked for it. Everyone agrees Ms. Eldred has a drug use problem. Many other people with this problem could also go to jail if courts are allowed to say they must stay drug-free as part of their probation.

The Court should not allow this rule for people with addiction for two main reasons. First, it goes against what the Court has said before. The Court has protected people on probation from rules they cannot realistically follow. For example, the Court said a person could not be made to pay back money they did not have. It also said a homeless person could not break a rule about electronic tracking if they had no way to charge the device.

These past cases show what should happen now. People with addiction cannot realistically be expected to stay completely drug-free. So, they should not be forced to do so as a rule for their probation.

Second, even if past cases did not decide this, the Court should use its power to stop this rule. Making people with addiction stay drug-free is dangerous and unfair. Probation is a court duty, and the Court can use its power to make sure it is not used in unfair ways.

The Court should step in here. Even if it means well, allowing courts to make people with addiction stay drug-free causes harm. It harms people on probation and makes the justice system less fair. It often puts many people with addiction in jail just because they have a setback in their recovery. This stops their treatment and puts their lives at risk. It also affects poor people and people of color more, adding to the problems of the War on Drugs.

The other side, the Commonwealth, wants the Court to allow these rules. They argue that people with addiction still have some choice not to use drugs. They say courts should be able to send people to jail if they break the drug-free rule. But the main question is what choice this Court will make for people with addiction. The Court can choose to send many to jail, stopping their treatment and risking their lives. This would make things worse for many. Or, it can choose a different path. This path would stop probation from being used to jail people for drug use, preventing unfairness and saving lives.

ISSUE PRESENTED

This case asks if judges in Massachusetts should be allowed to make people with addiction stay drug-free as a rule for their probation. This would mean they could be sent to jail if they use drugs again.