The religious nature of AA has sparked controversy beyond the caustic prose of Jack Trimpey. AA's long history of cooperation with law enforcement officials and servicing the court is coming into conflict with the First Amendment 's Establishment Clause (Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 10 . AA members work with officials to bring AA's message into jails and prisons in order to reach those who are suffering. Offenders who have been found guilty of driving under the influence, and those who accept some form of negotiated plea, are nearly always subject to formally defined programs of rehabilitation 10 . When deemed appropriate, AA is frequently one of the utilized programs.

For example, in New Jersey Superior Court Judge James N. Citta ordered Harlan E. Keown on December 20, 1998, to attend weekly AA meetings for the duration of his probation springing from charges of aggravated assault, possession of a firearm, and possession of a weapon for unlawful purpose 12 . More domestic crimes also result in AA mandated meetings, as seen in Riverside California Superior Court when Judge Sharon Waters ordered Tracy Watson on December 1, 1998, to include AA meetings as part of her probation package necessitated from child endangerment chares 13 . Violation of mandated AA meetings is usually severe, as exemplified in early January 1999 at 48th District Court in Detroit. Judge Kimberly Small sentenced Richard Gnida to 90 days in jail after violating the stipulation of his probation to attend AA 11 .
 

In recent years, offenders have increasingly protested mandatory attendance at AA meetings on the basis that the references to God and a "Higher Power" offend their religious beliefs and violate their First Amendment rights 10 . While attending an AA meeting the offender would not be required to participate in any ritual or prayer, but would invariably be exposed to prayers and religious forms of expression from other members 10 .

State mandated attendance of AA meetings, therefore, calls into question the relationship between the government and AA as a possible violation of the Establishment Clause in the form of an improper government endorsement of religion. A ruling in the summer of 1997 in the New York Court of Appeals held that in the case of Griffin v. Coughlin mandated AA meetings as part of prison treatment are a violation of the Establishment Clause of The First Amendment 10 . Petitioner David Griffin, an inmate at Shawangunk Correctional Facility in New York and an atheist, was approved for participation in the Family Reunion Program allowing for extended visitation 10 . As a caveat of the program the inmate must participate in the Alcohol and Substance Abuse Treatment (ASAT) program, patterned after AA's Twelve Steps 10 . Griffin complained of the religious nature of the program, taking his case to the Supreme Court of New York and asking that he be excused from participating in ASAT as part of the Family Reunion Program 10 . On appeal the New York Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division and ruled that the Twelve Steps of AA amount to a religious exercise "as a matter of law" and that "adherence to the AA fellowship entails engagement in religious activity and religious proselytization" 14 . These findings were based on the court's interpretation of Alcoholics Anonymous , Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions , and other AA literature 10 .

As a result of the ruling, correctional facilities nationwide have begun to see the need for alternative forms of substance abuse therapy. One of the groups utilized is Save Our Selves , a secular approach to addiction therapy 15 .
 

In a case currently before a federal court in Chicago two commercial airline pilots are suing their employer for being forced to participate in a program for alcohol abuse based on the AA Twelve Step Program 17 . They contend that the airline's policy discriminates against them on the basis of religion as one pilot is an atheist and the other a secular humanist. The pilots are suing on the grounds that AA's Twelve Steps refer to a monotheistic god and thus their forced participation is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 , which states that employers and unions
 

must not discriminate against employees because of their religious beliefs. Second, they must reasonably accommodate an employee's religious beliefs, unless the accommodation would create an undue hardship for the employer or the union. 16
 

AA's religious nature has spawned alternative secular addiction-recovery groups, as well as groups seeking to destroy the recovery group movement as a whole. The prominent use of "God," "Him," and "Higher Power" in AA's literature has led to conflicts in the courts over court or employer mandated participation in AA or groups patterned after AA. The New York Federal Appeals Court recently ruled that participation in AA forced by the government violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. A Chicago court is currently deciding if membership required by an employer violates Title VII of The Civil Rights Act of 1964. The legal controversy over AA and AA patterned programs has provided a more favorable economy for alternative groups such as Save Our Selves, Rational Recovery, and SMART Recovery.

It is too early to foresee the legal outcome of the controversies regarding the separation of church and state, and related cases claiming discrimination of the grounds of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, but most certainly the legal wheels are turning. The issue is of such enormous importance that it seems likely that the matter will be before the highest court in the land.