PRMA v. County of Alameda, No. 13-16833 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CasePlaintiffs, non-profit organizations representing the manufacturers and distributors of pharmaceutical products, filed suit challenging the Alameda County Safe Drug Disposal Ordinance, which requires that prescription drug manufacturers, who either sell, offer for sale, or distribute "Covered Drugs" in Alameda, operate and finance a "Product Stewardship Program." The court concluded that the Ordinance, both on its face and in effect, does not discriminate because it applies to all manufacturers that make their drugs available in Alameda County - without respect to the geographic location of the manufacturer; the Ordinance does not directly regulate interstate commerce where it does not control conduct beyond the boundaries of the county; under the balancing test in Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., the court concluded that, without any evidence that the Ordinance will affect the interstate flow of goods, the Ordinance does not substantially burden interstate commerce; and therefore, the Ordinance does not violate the dormant Commerce Clause. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants.
Court Description: Civil Rights/Commerce Clause. The panel affirmed the district court’s summary judgment and held that Alameda County’s Safe Drug Disposal Ordinance was constitutional under the Commerce Clause. The Safe Drug Disposal Ordinance requires any prescription drug producer who either sells, offers for sale, or distributes brand name and generic drugs in Alameda County, to collect and safely dispose of the County’s unwanted prescription drugs, no matter which manufacturer made the drug in question. Plaintiffs, non-profit trade organizations representing the manufacturers and distributors of pharmaceutical products, alleged that the Ordinance violates the dormant Commerce Clause by requiring interstate drug manufacturers to conduct and pay for Alameda County’s drug disposal program. The panel first held that the Ordinance neither discriminates against nor directly regulates interstate commerce. The panel determined that the Ordinance does not discriminate on its face and in effect because it applies to all manufacturers that make their drugs available in Alameda County—without respect to the geographic location of the manufacturer. The panel further determined that the Ordinance does not directly regulate interstate commerce because it does not control conduct beyond the boundaries of the County. Applying the balancing test set forth in See Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., 397 U.S. 137, 142 (1970), the panel could not say that the Ordinance substantially burdens interstate commerce, given that plaintiffs provided no evidence that the Ordinance will affect the interstate flow of goods. The panel then noted that the Ordinance’s environmental, health, and safety benefits were not contested for purposes of the cross- motions for summary judgment and that the Supreme Court is reluctant to invalidate regulations that touch upon safety.
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.