Resource Library

Topics

Filters

Clear Filters

Resource Library

New to the Resource Library?

Learn how to navigate, search, and use our resources effectively.

How to use the Library

Davis v. Carter

The Seventh Circuit ruled that Cook County’s repeated delays in providing methadone to an inmate could demonstrate deliberate indifference, equating delay with denial of care for a serious medical need.

methadoneinmatedeliberate indifferencedenial of careserious medical need
(2006)

Gonzales v. O Centro Espírita Beneficente União do Vegetal

The Court ruled that the religious use of a controlled substance was protected from federal prosecution under RFRA.

Religious Freedom Restoration ActRFRAreligious usecontrolled substancefederal prosecutionreligious exemption
(2006)

United States v. Georgia

The Court ruled the ADA applies to state prisons when constitutional rights are violated. This protects incarcerated individuals with disabilities, including those with substance use disorders.

ADATitle IIstate prisonssubstance use disorderdisability rights
(2006)

Gonzales v. Oregon

The Court held the Attorney General cannot ban doctors from prescribing drugs for state-authorized physician-assisted suicide. This ruling affirmed Oregon's right to allow the practice.

Controlled Substances Actphysician-assisted suicideprescription drugsstate-authorizeddoctors prescribing drugs
(2006)

Greeno v. Daley

The court found that failing to treat an inmate's worsening ulcer and denying proper diet or specialist care could demonstrate deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.

Eighth Amendmentdeliberate indifferenceserious medical needsinmatemedical carespecialist care
(2005)

Addiction Specialists, Inc. v. Township of Hampton

The Third Circuit ruled Hampton's zoning illegally excluded a methadone clinic, violating the ADA. The case was sent back for action to allow the clinic.

(2005)

Foelker v. Outagamie County

The court reinstated a lawsuit over a jail's forced methadone withdrawal. Evidence of severe withdrawal and neglect could show deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.

Methadone withdrawaldeliberate indifferenceserious medical needsmedical neglectcruel and unusual punishment
(2004)

Tsombanidis v. West Haven Fire Dept.

The court found West Haven did not discriminate under the FHA or ADA. This was because plaintiffs failed to show intentional bias or disparate impact from applying fire codes to a sober living home.

ADAFHAintentional discriminationdisparate impactsober living home
(2003)

Gonzalez v. Cecil County, Maryland

The court allowed a widow's lawsuit against Cecil County and jail staff to proceed. She claimed they were deliberately indifferent to her husband's fatal heroin withdrawal.

jail staffuntreated heroin withdrawaldeliberate indifference
(2002)

MX Group, Inc. v. City of Covington

The Sixth Circuit ruled Covington discriminated against people with disabilities by denying a permit for a methadone clinic and changing zoning laws. This decision favored MX Group, who had sued the city.

Methadone clinicADARehab ActZoning lawsDiscrimination
(2002)

Bustamante v. Massanari

The Ninth Circuit ruled that judges must assess all impairments, including drug or alcohol addiction, together when evaluating disability claims. Only then can they determine if substance abuse is material.

disability claimsdrug addictionalcoholism
(2001)

In re Anthony W.

The court committed a minor to juvenile hall due to repeated drug use and probation violations. This decision prioritized rehabilitation and supervision for the minor.

uvenile detentiondrug useprobation violationrehabilitation
(2001)

Florida Cannabis Action Network, Inc. v. City of Jacksonville

The court blocked Jacksonville's cannabis-festival ordinance, finding it likely violated First Amendment speech rights and unlawfully regulated event content.

cannabis festivalfree speechcontent regulationpreliminary injunction
(2001)

Lopez v. Davis

The Court upheld a federal regulation excluding inmates convicted of drug or firearm offenses from early release. This affirmed the Bureau of Prisons' discretion in inmate program eligibility.

federal regulationinmatesdrug offensesfirearm offensesearly releasediscretion
(2001)

United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Coop.

The Supreme Court ruled there is no medical necessity exception to the Controlled Substances Act. This means organizations cannot distribute marijuana, even for sick patients under state law.

Controlled Substances Actmedical necessity exceptionmedical marijuanapatient rights
(2001)
1...363738...45