“Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears” is a blog series documenting the harmful impact of President Trump’s judges on Americans’ rights and liberties. It includes judges nominated in both his first and second terms.
What’s at stake in this case?
Drug companies challenged a West Virginia law requiring more widespread discounts by drug companies than under federal law.
What happened in this case?
Under the 340B program created by Congress, private drug manufacturers obtain access to state Medicaid agencies as customers in exchange for drug price discounts. To preserve profit margins, many of the manufacturers significantly limited the number of pharmacies to which they would deliver 340B-priced drugs. West Virginia enacted a law requiring broader delivery of such drugs. A number of drug companies sued in federal court, claiming that the state law was invalid because it was preempted by the federal statute.
What was the rationale of Trump judges Richardson and Rushing?
Fourth Circuit Trump judges Julius Richardson and Allison Rushing maintained that the state law likely interferes with the federal 340B program by imposing additional requirements on manufacturers that participate in the program, interfering with the federal law and thus violating the supremacy clause. As a result, they agreed with the lower court that the state law program was likely invalid and sent the case back for the lower court to enter a final judgment against West Virginia.
Why did Judge Benjamin dissent?
Judge DeAndrea Benjamin, nominated by President Biden, strongly disagreed with judges Richardson and Rushing, noting that they had improperly used a more stringent preemption test than was proper in cases involving the Spending Clause and that granting a preliminary injunction against the state law was an abuse of discretion. She explained that most courts that have considered laws like West Virginia’s, including two courts of appeal and eleven district courts, have rejected similar preemption challenges. Judge Benjamin also noted that the majority ruling will harm West Virginia consumers, particularly “low-income patients.”
Why is the decision harmful?
The ruling by Trump judges Richardson and Rushing will clearly harm the efforts of West Virginia to help provide lower cost drugs to consumers, especially low-income consumers. It also sets a bad precedent concerning the federal preemption clause in the Fourth Circuit, which includes West Virginia, Virginia, Maryland, and North and South Carolina. The case also illustrates the importance of our federal courts to health, welfare and justice and the significance of having fair-minded judges on the federal bench.