Forum
U.S. Supreme Court
Case Status
Decided
Docket Number
Term
Cert. Denied
Lower Court Opinion
Questions Presented
Whether the dormant Commerce Clause permits a local law that directly conscripts out-of-state manufacturers to enter the locality and to assume all costs and responsibility for collecting and disposing of unused medicines from local residents, for the avowed purpose of shifting the costs of this traditional government function from local taxpayers and consumers to foreign producers and consumers?
Case Updates
Outcome
May 26, 2015
The petition for certiorari was denied.
U.S. Chamber urges Supreme Court to review Ninth Circuit ruling upholding drug "take-back" programs
January 28, 2015
The U.S. Chamber asked the Supreme Court to review a Ninth Circuit decision upholding Alameda County’s requirements that force out-of-state manufacturers to institute local drug “take-back” programs if any of their products are ultimately sold in the locality. The Chamber argued that the county’s ordinance imposes conditions on out-of-county commercial transaction for purely local ends in violation of the dormant Commerce Clause.
Fred A. Rowley, Jr., and Ellen Medlin Richmond of Munger Tolles & Olson LLPrepresented the U.S. Chamber of Commerce as co-counsel to the U.S. Chamber Litigation Center.
Case Documents
- Decision -- PhRMA v. Alameda County (Ninth Circuit).pdf
- Cert. Petition PhRMA v. County of Alameda, California (U.S. Supreme Court).pdf
- U.S. Chamber Amicus Brief -- PhRMA v. County of Alameda, California (U.S. Supreme Court).pdf
- Washington Legal Foundation Amicus Brief -- PhRMA v. County of Alameda, California (U.S. Supreme Court).pdf
- Brief in Opposition -- PhRMA v. County of Alameda, California (U.S. Supreme Court).pdf