IN THE MATTER OF DAVID GRIFFIN, APPELLANT, v. THOMAS A. COUGHLIN III, AS
COMMISSIONER OF THE NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, ET
AL., RESPONDENTS.
88 N.Y.2d 674, 673 N.E.2d 98, 649 N.Y.S.2d 903 (1996).
June 11, 1996
(Case Commentary by Editorial Board)
3 No. 73 (1996 NY Int. 137)
Decided June 11, 1996
_________________________________________________________________
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
Robert N. Isseks, for Appellant.
Julie S. Mereson, for Respondents.
American Jewish Congress, amicus curiae.
LEVINE, J.:
On this appeal we hold that, under the Establishment Clause of the
United States Constitution's First Amendment, an atheist or agnostic
inmate may not be deprived of eligibility for expanded family
visitation privileges for refusing to participate in the sole alcohol
and drug addiction program at his State correctional facility when the
program necessarily entails mandatory attendance at and participation
in a curriculum which adopts in major part the religious-oriented
practices and precepts of Alcoholics Anonymous (hereinafter A.A.).
Thus, we reverse the order of the Appellate Division and grant
judgment in favor of petitioner prohibiting respondents from
conditioning petitioner's participation in the Family Reunion Program
on attendance in the subject Alcohol and Substance Abuse Treatment
Program (hereinafter ASAT Program) as presently constituted.
In so holding, we in no way denigrate the proven effectiveness of the
A.A. approach to alcoholism or drug addiction rehabilitation, nor do
we imply that State correctional authorities must discontinue the
present ASAT Program if it were conducted on a voluntary basis, or
that they could not include a noncoercive use of A.A.'s 12-step
regimen as part of an alternative prisoner drug and alcohol abuse
treatment effort. Likewise, we have no doubt that the Department of
Correctional Services could validly construct a rehabilitation model
containing incentives and penalties, as in the ASAT Program, providing
it offered a secular alternative to the A.A. component. In that way,
the State could maintain the neutrality required by the Establishment
SNIPPETS:
COMMISSIONER OF THE NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
On this appeal we hold that, under the Establishment Clause of the United States
epts of Alcoholics Anonymous.
we reverse the order of the Appellate Division and grant judgment in favor of petitioner
Likewise, we have no doubt that the Department of Correctional Services could validly
He complained that the ASAT Program he had been attending was based upon religious principles
He later averred that, at that time, he was unfamiliar with the actual workings of the ASAT
Pointing to A.A. literature, respondents averred that the references to God actually mean
the Appellate Division concluded that petitioner's documentary evidence did not establish
the Appellate Division erred in rejecting the petition in this case by applying too narrow a
Instead, the dissent disavows the significance of the repeated "deistic symbols and
Here, the State, through its correctional authorities at the Shawangunk facility, has
As Justice Black explained in the first case applying the Establishment Clause to the States,
Indeed, in Lee v Weisman, although the Supreme Court split on whether a junior high school's
where we particularly part company with the dissent is in the respective responses to the
The building blocks rest also on the attribution to the ASAT Program of a predicate of
|
