Stormans, Inc. v. Wiesman
579 U.S. 942
SCOTUS2016Background
- The Stormans family owns Ralph’s Thriftway pharmacy in Olympia, WA; they refuse on religious grounds to stock/dispense emergency contraceptives (e.g., Plan B) and instead provide facilitated referrals to nearby pharmacies that do.
- In 2007 the Washington State Board of Pharmacy adopted two rules: a Delivery Rule requiring pharmacies to deliver lawfully prescribed drugs (with limited exceptions) and a Pharmacist Responsibility Rule requiring pharmacies to ensure a pharmacist is available to dispense prescribed drugs.
- The Board’s guidance and record show special focus on preventing referrals based on moral or religious objections to emergency contraception; the Governor and State agencies pressured the Board during rulemaking.
- Ralph’s sued alleging the rules target religiously motivated conduct and violate the Free Exercise Clause; the district court enjoined the rules after finding discriminatory intent and underinclusive exemptions favoring secular refusals.
- The Ninth Circuit reversed, upholding the rules under rational-basis review and finding no improper intent; the Supreme Court denied certiorari. Justice Alito (joined by Chief Justice and Justice Thomas) dissented from denial, arguing the regulations likely are not neutral or generally applicable and warrant strict scrutiny.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether rules are neutral and generally applicable under Free Exercise doctrine | Stormans: rules target religiously motivated referrals and are not neutral or generally applicable because they allow many secular exemptions while forbidding religious referrals | State: rules ensure safe and timely access to medications and apply generally to all pharmacies; no discriminatory intent | District Court: found discriminatory intent/underinclusive exemptions and enjoined rules; Ninth Circuit: reversed and upheld rules; Supreme Court: denied certiorari (case not reviewed) |
| Whether evidence of legislative/administrative intent supports Free Exercise challenge | Stormans: record (Governor letters, Board guidance, meetings) shows predominant purpose to stamp out religious refusals | State: Board concerned broadly with timely access to various drugs; no improper intent established | District Court: credited evidence of targeted intent; Ninth Circuit: disagreed; Supreme Court denied certiorari |
| Whether underinclusive exemptions (e.g., financial/insurance exceptions) defeat neutrality | Stormans: exceptions permitting nonreligious refusals (insurance, business niche, compounding) make rules underinclusive and discriminatory | State: exceptions are legitimate narrow limits and enforcement is complaint-driven; refusal-to-pay exception is unremarkable | District Court: found exceptions substantial and underinclusive; Ninth Circuit: found no clear error; Supreme Court denied certiorari |
| Appropriate level of scrutiny (rational-basis vs strict scrutiny) | Stormans: if rules are not neutral/general, strict scrutiny applies and State must show narrow tailoring to compelling interest | State: rules are neutral and generally applicable; rational-basis review suffices to uphold them to protect access | Ninth Circuit applied rational-basis and upheld; Supreme Court denied certiorari (no review of scrutiny issue) |
Key Cases Cited
- Employment Div. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) (free exercise does not excuse compliance with valid, neutral, generally applicable laws)
- Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993) (laws targeting religiously motivated conduct are not neutral and trigger strict scrutiny)
- Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564 (1985) (appellate courts must defer to district court fact-findings if plausible in light of the record)