(Photo: Shutterstock.com)

A nonprofit proposing to open the nation's first safe injection site has secured an initial legal victory, with a federal judge rejecting arguments the harm reduction site would violate a portion of the Controlled Substances Act colloquially known as the "crack house" statute.

U.S. District Judge Gerald A. McHugh of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Wednesday denied a motion for declaratory judgment on the pleadings filed by U.S. Attorney William McSwain of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. McSwain's office had argued that the proposed site, which would include a "consumption room" where medical staff would oversee heroin injections, would violate the law.

McHugh, however, determined there was no evidence the U.S. Congress specifically intended to criminalize safe injection sites when it passed the Controlled Substances Act decades ago, and so it was not for the court to criminalize the conduct.

"Safe injection sites were not considered by Congress and could not have been, because their use as a possible harm reduction strategy among opioid users had not yet entered public discourse. Particularly in the area of criminal law, it is the province of Congress to determine what is worthy of sanction," McHugh said. "A responsible use of judicial power under those circumstances is to decline to expand the scope of criminal liability under the statute and allow Congress to address the issue."

Although the decision is a win for Safehouse, the nonprofit backing the site, it is not the final stage of the litigation. McHugh's ruling comes following a motion for judgment on the pleadings, so now the litigation is set to focus on any factual disputes the parties may have.

The declaratory judgment action, which was filed in February and was the first of its kind in the nation, specifically took issue with Safehouse's stated plan to operate the "consumption room."

It is Safehouse's position that the site would help stem the recent increase of opioid-related deaths and reduce the spread of disease, but McSwain has argued that the site clearly violates the law. In announcing the lawsuit, he dismissed the notion that the law makes any distinction for doctors, nurses or others who do not sell drugs, but are there to provide medical oversight.

Much of the oral argument session before McHugh that occurred last month focused on the purpose of opening such sites and their intended and unintended consequences.

Ilana Eisenstein, DLA Piper's appellate co-chair, who represented Safehouse, argued that its purpose is akin to that of emergency medical staff and first responders, who provide lifesaving medical care to overdose victims. But McSwain said during the argument session that the unintended purpose of the site would be to allow, and even promote, unlawful drug use.

However, in his opinion Wednesday, McHugh said the "purpose at issue" for violating the statute needed to be a "significant purpose to facilitate drug use."

"Allowance of some drug use as one component of an effort to combat drug use will not suffice," McHugh said. "The ultimate goal of Safehouse's proposed operation is to reduce drug use, not facilitate it, and, accordingly, [the contested section of the statute] does not prohibit Safehouse's proposed conduct."

Eisenstein said the ruling was a "landmark" decision and a "giant leap forward" for Safehouse's efforts to open the site. She also said the ruling should provide guidance to other federal districts as they begin to grapple with similar issues.

"It was a tremendous decision for those fighting the opioid epidemic," Eisenstein said. "We were particularly gratified by the finding that the ultimate goal is to reduce drug use. Ultimately Safehouse seeks to save lives, and that's not something federal law prohibits."

A spokeswoman for the U.S. Attorney's Office did not immediately return a message seeking comment.