That the rules may affect pharmacists who object to Plan B for religious reasons does not undermine the neutrality of the rules. The Free Exercise Clause is not violated even though a group motivated by religious reasons may be more likely to engage in the proscribed conduct.The court remanded the case with this explanation:
We hold that the district court abused its discretion in applying an erroneous legal standard of review, failing to properly consider the balance of hardships and the public interest, and entering an overbroad injunction. On remand, the district court must apply the rational basis level of scrutiny to determine whether Appellees have demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits. The district court must also determine whether Appellees have demonstrated that they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, whether the balance of equities tips in the favor of the three Appellees, and whether the public interest supports the entry of an injunction. If the court finds in favor of Appellees, it must narrowly tailor any injunctive relief to the specific threatened harms raised by Appellees.In its opinion, the 9th Circuit included an extensive discussion of standing and ripeness. It refused to decide whether a for-profit corporation can assert its own free exercise rights. Instead it concluded that the corporate plaintiff could properly assert the free exercise rights of the individual owner/directors in the family owned pharmacy. Individual pharmacists also had standing. Judge Clifton wrote a short concurring opinion, rejecting the majority's holding that it could not consider legislative history in deciding whether a law is neutral and generally applicable.
(It is worth noting that last year, the same panel of the 9th Circuit refused to stay the preliminary injunction pending the appeal that it decided yesterday.) The Seattle Post-Intelligencer reports on yesterday's decision.
