Yesterday in Stormans Inc. v. Selecky, (9th Cir., May 1, 2008), in a 2-1 decision the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to stay a preliminary injunction that the district court had entered barring enforcement of Washington State Pharmacy Board regulations against plaintiff, a religious objector to dispensing the "morning after" (Plan B) pill. The challenged regulations require pharmacists to fill all prescriptions even if doing so violates their religious beliefs. (See prior posting.) The majority said that even if the district court was wrong in concluding that the Pharmacy Board regulations violate the Free Exercise clause, there is insufficient evidence that intervenors who sought the stay will face irreparable harm if the injunction remains in effect pending appeal. The injunction requires that a pharmacist who refuses to fill a prescription for Plan B must refer the customer to a nearby source for it.
Judge Tashima wrote a lengthy dissent concluding that appellants had a strong likelihood of success on the merits. Therefore so long as there was a possibility of irreparable harm, particularly in light of the public interest involved, the preliminary injunction should have been stayed. Reuters and Life News both report on the 9th Circuit decision.
