Other LanguagesPharmacies objected to dispensing emergency contraceptives
SEATTLE — Attorney General Bob Ferguson today asked the United States Supreme Court to decline to review a case challenging state rules ensuring patients have timely access to medication, including emergency contraceptives. The argument was made in a brief filed with the high court.
After a unanimous ruling in the state’s favor by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in July 2015, the plaintiffs in Stormans v. Wiesman filed a petition for review with the high court.
The challenged rules, adopted by the Washington Board of Pharmacy (now the Pharmacy Commission), require that pharmacies ensure patients have timely access to medication. The plaintiffs allege that the rules violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.
“The appeals court decision keeps decisions regarding medical care, including reproductive rights, where they belong: between a patient and his or her medical professionals,” said Ferguson. “That unanimous ruling should stand.”
The brief outlines inaccuracies in the plaintiffs’ petition for review and argues that there is no basis for the Supreme Court to grant review. In particular, the Attorney General asserts, the court of appeals correctly resolved the issues in the case, and in doing so created no disagreement with other courts. If the Supreme Court agrees with the state’s view and declines to hear the appeal, this long-running case will finally come to a close.
Case background
This case, formerly known as Stormans v. Selecky, has a long history. The rules at issue were adopted by the Washington Board of Pharmacy in 2007, after a lengthy process of discussion and public comment.
Stormans, Inc., doing business as Ralph’s Thriftway, and two pharmacists who work elsewhere sued in federal court shortly after the rules were adopted. The plaintiffs objected to stocking and dispensing the emergency contraceptives Plan B and ella.
At the trial level, in 2007, Judge Ronald B. Leighton of the federal District Court for the Western District of Washington concluded that the rules violated the First Amendment by impinging on the plaintiffs’ exercise of their religion. Judge Leighton issued a preliminary injunction blocking the rules from being enforced.
The state appealed, and in 2009 the Ninth Circuit reversed the preliminary injunction, concluding that the rules did not discriminate on the basis of religion and thus should be reviewed under the “rational basis” test, which asks whether the state has any rational basis for the rules. The Ninth Circuit sent the case back to Judge Leighton for review under this standard.
Judge Leighton concluded, however, that rational basis review did not apply, and in 2012 conducted a trial. Although nothing about the rules had changed since the Ninth Circuit’s 2009 ruling and the rules had not been enforced in the interim, Judge Leighton again concluded that the rules violated the First Amendment by impinging on the plaintiffs’ exercise of their religion.
The state appealed that decision in 2012. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously reversed the lower court ruling, agreeing that the rules are neutral and generally applicable.
The U.S. Supreme Court will likely decide whether to hear the case by the end of April.
-30-
The Office of the Attorney General is the chief legal office for the state of Washington with attorneys and staff in 27 divisions across the state providing legal services to roughly 200 state agencies, boards and commissions. Visit www.atg.wa.gov to learn more.
Contact:
Peter Lavallee, Communications Director, (360) 586-0725; PeterL@atg.wa.gov