Stormans, Inc. v.Wiesman, No. 12-35221 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CasePlaintiffs, the owner of a pharmacy and two individual pharmacists who have religious objections to delivering emergency contraceptives, challenged the Commission's rules requiring the timely delivery of all prescription medications by licensed pharmacies. The rules permit pharmacies to deny delivery for certain business reasons, such as fraudulent prescriptions or a customer’s inability to pay; permit a religiously objecting individual pharmacist to deny delivery, so long as another pharmacist working for the pharmacy provides timely delivery; but, unless an enumerated exemption applies, the rules require a pharmacy to deliver all prescription medications, even if the owner of the pharmacy has a religious objection. The district court held that the rules violate the Free Exercise and Equal Protection Clauses, and the court permanently enjoined enforcement of the rules. The court reversed, concluding that the rules are neutral and generally applicable and that the rules rationally further the State’s interest in patient safety. Further concluding that the rules do not infringe on a fundamental right, the court reversed the judgment.
Court Description: Civil Rights. The panel reversed the district court’s judgment, entered following a bench trial, in an action brought by the owner of a pharmacy and two pharmacists who have religious objections to delivering emergency contraceptives, and who challenged Washington state rules requiring the timely delivery of all prescription medications by licensed pharmacies. The rules permit pharmacies to deny delivery for certain business reasons, such as fraudulent prescriptions or a customer’s inability to pay. The rules also permit a religiously objecting individual pharmacist to deny delivery, so long as another pharmacist working for the pharmacy provides timely delivery. Addressing plaintiffs’ free exercise claim, the panel held that the rules, promulgated by the Washington Pharmacy Quality Assurance Commission, were facially neutral. The panel also held that the rules operated neutrally because they prescribed and proscribed the same conduct for all, regardless of motivation. The panel further held that the rules were generally applicable and that according to the evidence produced at trial, the rules (1) were not substantially underinclusive in their prohibition of religious objections but allowance of certain secular exemptions; (2) did not create a regime of unfettered discretion through the individualized STORMANS, INC. V. WIESMAN 5 exemptions that would permit discriminatory treatment of religion or religiously motivated conduct; and (3) were not selectively enforced. Because the rules were neutral and generally applicable, rational basis review applied. The panel held that the rules were rationally related to Washington’s legitimate interest in ensuring that its citizens have safe and timely access to their lawful and lawfully prescribed medications. The panel rejected plaintiffs’ equal protection claim on the same basis as the free exercise claim. Addressing plaintiffs’ due process claim, the panel declined to recognize a new fundamental right. The panel held that it was unconvinced that the right to own, operate, or work at a licensed professional business free from regulations requiring the business to engage in activities that one sincerely believes lead to the taking of human life was so rooted in conscience and the Nation’s tradition as to be ranked as fundamental. 6 STORMANS, INC. V. WIESMAN
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.