Reply #30: You might find this article interesting

[jberryhill]

http://legallad.quickanddirtytips.com/does-mandatory-alcoholics-anonymous-violate-constitution.aspx

"The upshot is that parole and probation officers must be very careful when ordering treatment for addicts--they might find themselves on the wrong end of a lawsuit.  Having said that, the damages in such a suit may not be very large. In one case, a New York man who claimed to be an atheist sued county probation officials for requiring him to attend AA after his third alcohol-related driving offense. A federal district judge agreed that the officials had violated the Establishment clause--but ordered them to pay just $1, as “symbolic” damages.

Optional Participation in AA is Constitutional

Mind you, in cases like this, the courts found that the government had forced the person to attend AA or NA. In other cases, where state or local officials simply made participation in AA one option for substance abusers, courts have not found any Establishment Clause violation."

This one, from an organization I support, includes a bit more legalese, and citations to the relevant cases

http://ffrf.org/faq/state-church/court-ordered-participation-in-a.a/

If you want to drill down further, you might look at this case:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9769975594696337856&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr