Stormans Inc. v. Selecky
844 F. Supp. 2d 1172
W.D. Wash.2012Background
- Plaintiffs are two individual pharmacists and Stormans, Inc., objecting to dispensing Plan B due to beliefs life begins at conception.
- 2007 Washington Board of Pharmacy rules impose a delivery rule to require timely delivery of all lawfully prescribed drugs, including Plan B, with discipline for refusals.
- Stocking rule requires a representative drug assortment; both rules, in practice, burden objecting pharmacists and pharmacies.
- Plaintiffs claim the rules, as applied, violate free exercise, substantive due process, and equal protection, and are preempted by Title VII.
- Board actions and rulemaking were factually linked to Governor’s office and advocacy groups aiming to override conscientious objection.
- Trial developed full evidentiary record; court later enjoined enforcement as to the Plaintiffs, and addressed constitutional challenges on the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the delivery/stocking scheme burden religious exercise? | Stormans argues the rules are not neutral or generally applicable. | Board contends rules are facially neutral and generally applicable. | Not neutral or generally applicable; strict scrutiny applies. |
| Is there a fundamental right to conscience that the state may not burden? | Plaintiffs claim a substantive due process right to refrain from participating in ending life. | State argues no recognized fundamental right to refuse participation in ending life. | Court declines to recognize a new fundamental right; declines strict scrutiny on this basis. |
| Are the rules narrowly tailored under strict scrutiny or rational basis? | As applied, rules target religious objectors and are not narrowly tailored to compelling interests. | Rules serve patient access and are neutral and generally applicable. | Rules fail strict scrutiny; discriminatory in operation and not narrowly tailored. |
| Do the rules violate equal protection by targeting religious objectors? | Selective enforcement harms similarly situated non-religious conduct comparisons. | Enforcement is neutral on its face and not intentionally targeting. | Equal protection violated; not applied equally to Catholic/non-Catholic pharmacies and objectors. |
| Does Title VII preempt these state rules? | Rules permit discrimination against religiously motivated conduct, implicating Title VII. | Rules do not expressly sanction discriminatory practice; preemption not triggered. | Title VII does not preempt the rules as written; no express permission to discriminate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Employment Div., Dep’t of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (U.S. 1990) (neutral, generally applicable laws burden religion; strict scrutiny not required)
- Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (U.S. 1993) (neutrality/general applicability; targeting religious practice invalidates laws)
- Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (U.S. 1997) (fundamental rights and substantive due process framework)
- Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (U.S. 1973) (acknowledges unresolved defining moment of life and abortion rights context)
- Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (U.S. 1992) (abortion framework influencing rights surrounding reproductive decisions)
- Tenafly Eruv Ass’n, Inc. v. Borough of Tenafly, 309 F.3d 144 (3d Cir. 2002) (neutrality and exemptions in regulatory schemes; religious objectors protected)
- Fraternal Order of Police Newark Lodge No. 12 v. City of Newark, 170 F.3d 359 (3d Cir. 1999) (underinclusive exemptions undermine governmental interests)