Stormans Inc v. John Wiesman
794 F.3d 1064
9th Cir.2015Background
- Washington Pharmacy Quality Assurance Commission adopted two rules: Pharmacist Responsibility Rule for individual pharmacists and Delivery Rule requiring timely delivery of medications by pharmacies, with exemptions for certain business reasons.
- Delivery Rule imposes a general delivery obligation, but enumerated exemptions include fraud, errors, emergencies, lack of equipment, and unavailability despite good faith compliance with stocking rules.
- Stormans, Inc. owns Ralph’s Thriftway; owners have religious objections to Plan B/ella and decline stocking/delivering these drugs; two individual pharmacists share religious objections.
- District court enjoined enforcement; on appeal, panel held rules neutral and generally applicable, applying rational-basis review, and reversed in favor of the state.
- Record shows the rules apply to all prescriptions, not just emergency contraception, and the Commission’s enforcement was largely complaint-driven, not selectively targeting religious objectors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are the rules neutral and generally applicable? | Stormans argues rules target religion and are not generally applicable. | WASP contends rules are facially neutral and uniformly applicable with exemptions for business needs. | Yes; rules are neutral and generally applicable. |
| Is there a rational basis to uphold the rules under equal protection/ due process framing? | Stormans asserts discrimination against religious objectors and potential due process violation. | Washington asserts rational basis linking delivery rules to public health and timely access. | Rules pass rational-basis review. |
| Did the Delivery Rule create a new fundamental right or infringe a fundamental liberty under due process? | Stormans contends a right to refrain from participating in activities believed to take life is a fundamental liberty. | State argues no fundamental liberty exists in operating a licensed business under these regulations. | No new fundamental right recognized; rational basis applies. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993) (neutrality and general applicability evaluated; targeting religious practice forbidden)
- Employment Div., Dep’t of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) (neutral, generally applicable laws require only rational basis review)
- Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292 (1993) (careful description of asserted fundamental liberty required in due process analysis)
- Stormans, Inc. v. Selecky, 854 F. Supp. 2d 925 (W.D. Wash. 2012) (district court decision discussed in appellate proceedings)
- Stormans, Inc. v. Wiesman, 586 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir. 2009) (precedent establishing neutrality and general applicability on appeal)
- Grace United Methodist Church v. City of Cheyenne, 451 F.3d 643 (10th Cir. 2006) (secular exemptions do not automatically create religious exemptions)
- Vision Church v. Village of Long Grove, 468 F.3d 975 (7th Cir. 2006) (fact-specific inquiry on discriminatory application of regulations)
- Monahan v. N.Y. City Dept. of Corr., 214 F.3d 275 (2d Cir. 2000) (limits on the use of as-applied challenges to policy interpretation)