The American Society for Pharmacy Law (ASPL) is an organization of attorneys, pharmacists, pharmacist-attorneys and students of pharmacy or law who are interested in the law as it applies to
pharmacy, pharmacists, wholesalers, manufacturers, state and federal government and other interested parties.
ASPL is a non-profit which encourages diversity & inclusion with the Society, regardless of differing backgrounds, perspectives, experiences, orientations, origins, and practice settings. The Society embraces participation and diversity as it leads to advancing our purpose:
- Furthering knowledge in the law related to pharmacists, pharmacies, the provision of pharmaceutical care, the manufacturing and distribution of drugs, and other food, drug, and medical device policy issues;
- Communicating accurate legal educational information; and
- Providing educational opportunities for pharmacists, attorneys, and others who are interested in pharmacy law
Latest News
November 30 , 2021
COVID-19 PANDEMIC
Missouri Federal District Court enjoins enforcement of CMS health employee vaccine mandate in 10 states
On November 29, the US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri granted the motion of the 10 plaintiff states (MO, NE, AK, KS, IA, WY, AK, SD, ND, NH) for a preliminary injunction preventing CMS from imposing its November 5 Interim Final Rule against entities within the plaintiff states. The rule, entitled “Medicare and Medicaid Programs: Omnibus COVID-19 Health Care Staff Vaccination” [86 Fed. Reg. 61555 (Nov. 5, 2021)], which the Court calls “the mandate,” requires employers, volunteers, and third-party contractors working for facilities that provide services or supplies under Medicare or Medicaid certification to be vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2, and to have received at least a first dose by December 6.
The Court rejected the government’s position that it lacked jurisdiction based on Congressional withdrawal of “federal-question jurisdiction over claims like this one that arise under the Medicare statute.” Plaintiffs assert that their claims arise under Medicaid also, and the Medicaid statute contains no such bar. Without significant explanation, the Court declared that it “has jurisdiction over claims arising under both Medicare and Medicaid.”
The Court granted the preliminary injunction finding in large part that the CMS rule was promulgated ultra vires, and plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits. The Court found that this significant rule is of the nature that requires explicit authorization from Congress to CMS, and it was not willing to infer Congressional intent. The Court also found that CMS bypassed notice and comment requirements in promulgating the rule. CMS’s reliance on emergency powers is vitiated, the Court found, by evidence that CMS delayed for 7 months in promulgating the rule.
The Court also found that CMS was arbitrary and capricious by extrapolating data from long-term care settings to other healthcare settings, and CMS rejected alternatives to vaccination that “even OSHA” had approved in its rule-making on the issue.
Citing also the breadth of the rule’s scope, the Court granted plaintiffs’ motion and enjoined enforcement of the interim final rule “against any and all Medicare- and Medicaid-certified providers and suppliers within the States of Alaska, Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming” pending trial or further order. [Missouri et al. v. Biden et al., No. 4:21-cv-01329-MTS, E.D. Mo., November 29, 2021]
