Juries must consider actual beliefs of opioid prescribers in criminal prosecutions

According to DEA regulations, pharmacists cannot “knowingly” dispense controlled substances pursuant a prescription that was not issued for “legitimate medical purpose” or by an individual practitioner acting “in the usual course of his professional practice.” This is generally referred as “corresponding responsibility” rule. If you find this language confusing, then are in good company, along with Supreme Court United States (SCOTUS). Fifteen years ago, they called “ambiguous” “generalities susceptible more precise definition and open varying constructions.” On June 27, 2022, SCOTUS released legal opinion interpreted vacated criminal convictions two physicians who alleged have illegally prescribed opioids. one final opinions authored Justice Stephen Breyer. The easy read, which typical restricts federal power, reports 9–0 unanimous decision favor adverse Department (DOJ), virtually unheard recent times (both unanimity adversity DOJ). case consolidated appeals Alabama physician sentenced 20 prison Wyoming 25 prison. Both contended judges presiding over their cases had erred allowing juries consider did subjectively believe were prescribing opioids illegally. government countered objective standard been appropriately presented juries, rejecting subjective belief valid defense. ruling does guilt innocence physicians. court considered only whether should be granted new trials due error standard. criticized government's position “would turn defendant's liability on mental state hypothetical ‘reasonable’ doctor, defendant himself herself.” concluded obtain conviction, must prove “a knew intended her conduct unauthorized.” “objectively reasonable” rejected inapplicable circumstance opioid prescribing. about physicians, but it also pharmacists. regulation states pharmacist honor unlawfully prescription. lawful under interpretation (prescriber know intend her/his unauthorized), there nothing unlawful of. pharmacist's responsibility corresponds prescriber. A violate regulations knowingly honoring illegal if legal. It impossible isn't illegal. applies prosecutions. same would extend prosecution, because well Pharmacists criminally prosecuted substance dispensing likely allowed assert Whether rationale will extended civil related denial revocation pharmacy's registration question. Many precedents expanded beyond narrow constraints original established. stretch think now relevant cases.