June 28, 2024 — FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Washington D.C. — On Friday, the Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute (HLLI) asked a federal court to make permanent its earlier ruling stopping Missouri’s unconstitutional restriction of the speech of Missouri pharmacists. The law at issue, § 338.055.7, RSMo., prevents pharmacists in the state from communicating with physicians or patients to dispute the effectiveness of ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine for human use as a COVID-19 treatment. Representing Missouri pharmacist Ashley Stock, HLLI challenged the law’s constitutionality in 2022, and the court agreed with HLLI and Stock, enjoining Missouri from enforcing the then-new law because it “infringes the free speech rights of Plaintiff and other Missouri-licensed pharmacists.” HLLI now seeks to make the court’s order permanent, preventing the State of Missouri from ever attempting to enforce the law.
The Constitutional principles underpinning HLLI and Stock’s challenge are simple. If a government entity chooses to regulate or restrict speech, it may not do so in a way that discriminates against certain viewpoints. But that’s exactly what this law does: punishing pharmacists that attempt to counsel patients or debate with prescribers the merits of these two drugs as a cure for COVID-19, while leaving pharmacists free to advocate for their use. And just because Stock and other pharmacists choose to practice a profession, does not excuse the State from ignoring constitutional rights under the pretense of regulating their professional conduct. In fact, as the Supreme Court recognized in Nat’l Institute for Fam. and Life Advocates v. Becerra, 138 S. Ct. 2361, 2374 (2018), a free market for ideas is all the more necessary “[i]n the fields of medicine and public health” where “information can save lives.”
Section 338.055.7 is fundamentally incompatible with the First Amendment. State regulators may not anoint themselves gatekeepers of the marketplace of ideas. Pharmacists have no monopoly on the truth, but they are every bit as entitled as any other citizen to share their opinions.
HLLI Senior Attorney, and lead attorney for the case, Adam Schulman said “Missouri’s law here is consistent with many state and local government’s attempts to end run the First Amendment rights of professionals by labeling their unconstitutional restrictions as merely regulating ‘conduct.’ The Court here already saw through the State’s ruse and preliminarily enjoined the law. We look forward to the Court’s ruling making that permanent.”
The name of the case is Stock v. Grey, et al., 2:22-cv-4104-NKL (W.D. Mo.).
* * *
Founded in 2019, Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute is a nonprofit public interest law firm that challenges improper restrictions on speech, administrative and regulatory actions, and abuses of the class action and civil justice system that exceed constitutional limits, promote rent-seeking, or otherwise improperly created deadweight loss.
As a nonprofit, tax-exempt organization as defined by section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, HLLI relies on support from individuals and foundations that share a commitment to individual liberty, free enterprise, and limited government. To learn more, visit http://hlli.org.
For more information about this case, check our case page or contact:
Adam Schulman, Senior Attorney, (610) 457-0856, adam.schulman@hlli.org