Federal appeals court stalls involuntary medication of Jehovah’s Witness

---

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that the religious objections of a Jehovah’s Witness, indicted in 2020 for threatening to murder a federal judge, had to be considered before he was involuntarily administered psychiatric medication. The medication was recommended after the Jehovah’s Witness seemed determined to be declared mentally unfit to stand trial. 

Key Players

Bryant Lamont Harris, a Jehovah’s Witness, claimed that involuntary medication would violate his right to religious expression. Harris, a resident of Monticello, Mississippi, has been arrested in multiple cases across Oklahoma, Florida, and Louisiana.

U.S. District Judge Susie Morgan, nominated by former President Barack Obama in 2011, and her staff received death threats from Harris in February 2020. 

Further Details

On Feb. 13, 2020, Harris called Morgan’s office, inquiring as to how many security personnel she had protecting her. Over the phone, Harris allegedly described himself as “expertly trained in marksmanship” and complained extensively about the New Orleans police department. 

“I need to know how many people I need to take out to get to the judge,” Harris said. “I’m not hiding.” According to court filings, Harris had contacted Morgan’s chambers many times before. 

After his arrest, Harris underwent a behavioral health evaluation, which revealed many delusional beliefs. Harris imagined he had been offered “multiple women and $500k a month contract to join the Illuminati” because he possessed “special gifts,” according to court documents.  Subsequently, the U.S. District Court (Eastern District of Louisiana) found Harris mentally unfit to stand trial in April 2022.

After Harris refused to take psychotropic medication while incarcerated, Brianna Glover, a forensic psychologist, suggested the state medicate Harris involuntarily to make him fit for trial. In order for an individual to be forcibly medicated by the state, the government must prove the treatment plan abides by Sell v. United States (2003).

In Sell, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the government could sometimes administer antipsychotic drugs against a patient’s will in order to make the patient fit to stand trial. For such medication to be permissible, however, the government must prove that important governmental interests are at stake, that involuntary medication will significantly further those interests, that such medication is necessary to further those interests, and that the administration of any particular drug is medically appropriate.

During a court hearing about Harris’s treatment plan, he objected to being forcibly medicated, arguing his religious beliefs as a Jehovah’s Witness prevented him from taking such drugs. With the objection raised, the state had to consider Harris’s First Amendment rights. 

In federal district court, it was determined that the government had satisfied the Sell criteria, and that the government could medicate Harris. However, the ruling was appealed to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. 

Outcome 

Federal appellate court upholds Harris’ religious rights

On Aug. 11, 2023, a panel of three appellate judges — Jennifer Walker Elrod, nominated by former President George W. Bush, James Ho, nominated by former President Donald Trump, and Andrew Oldham, also nominated by Trump — determined that, while the lower court was correct in ruling the state met the requirements laid out in Sell, it did not properly consider Harris’s right to practice his religion freely. 

The appellate court noted the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) requires the government to prove a compelling government interest when trying to overrule protected religious beliefs or practices. The court found that the government did not prove the necessary compelling interest in medicating Harris, thus disallowing the treatment plan until further notice.

On Oct. 17, the court further explained, “We do not hold that religious faith constitutes a get-out-of-jail-free card. We also do not hold that all religious objections eliminate the Government’s interests under the first Sell factor. We hold only that religious liberty can constitute a ‘special circumstance’ under Sell, and that Harris properly raised a religious objection to forcible medication here.”

Subsequently, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals sent the case back to the district court. As of Dec. 21, 2023, there were no further developments.