AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP v. Ellison

Background

The two consolidated cases challenged Minnesota Statute § 62J.96. The statute requires pharmaceutical manufacturers to offer pricing discounts required by Section 340B of the Public Health Service Act to an unlimited number of “contract pharmacies” and makes doing so a condition of participating in Medicaid.

The drug-manufacturer plaintiffs argued that the Minnesota statute improperly expanded the federal discount program. AbbVie asserted federal preemption, a Takings Clause claim, and a Due Process Clause claim. AstraZeneca asserted federal preemption, a Takings Clause claim, and a Contracts Clause claim. The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief against Keith M. Ellison, the Minnesota attorney general. AstraZeneca also sued named members of the Minnesota Board of Pharmacy in their official capacities.

The plaintiffs did not allege that any defendant had enforced the law or threatened to enforce it. The defendants moved to dismiss both cases.

Standing and state-official immunity

The court treated standing as a threshold issue. Standing requires a plaintiff to show an actual injury, a connection between that injury and the defendant’s challenged conduct, and a likelihood that a favorable court decision would remedy the injury. Without standing, a federal court lacks authority to decide the case.

The court also considered Eleventh Amendment immunity, which generally protects states and state officials from certain suits. An exception can allow a suit seeking to stop an unconstitutional state law when the official has some connection to enforcing that law. The court held that the defendants did not have the necessary enforcement connection.

Regarding the attorney general, the court noted that Minnesota’s legislature had expressly granted the attorney general enforcement authority in other statutes but had not done so in § 62J.96. The court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the attorney general’s general constitutional powers or Minnesota Statute § 8.31 supplied the required connection.

The court reached the same conclusion regarding the Board of Pharmacy. Although the legislature appeared to have considered giving the board enforcement authority over § 62J.96, it did not do so. The court also noted that neither defendant had enforced or threatened to enforce the statute. The defendants’ stated position was that they lacked authority to enforce it, and the court concluded that the defendants did not need to make a stronger disavowal of possible future enforcement.

Disposition

The court concluded that the plaintiffs lacked standing and that Eleventh Amendment immunity applied. It ordered that the motion to dismiss in AbbVie, Inc., et al. v. Ellison, No. 24-2605, was granted; the motion to dismiss in AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP v. Ellison, et al., No. 24-2621, was granted; and both cases were dismissed. The opinion does not state that either dismissal was with or without prejudice. Because the cases were dismissed on standing and immunity grounds, the court did not decide the merits of the constitutional and preemption claims.