We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.
TRIPLE RELIST SUGGEST LIKELY SCOTUS REVIEW OF ‘PILL MILL’ STANDARDS
In Supreme Court-speak, a “relist” is a petition for certiorari that is neither granted nor denied, but rather held over for consideration at a subsequent conference of justices, some with the court issued a “CVSG” (a “call for the views of the Attorney General”). A petition is usually “relisted” because of debate among the justices as to its merit. With only four votes required for grant of certiorari, being “relisted” substantially increases the chances that a petition will be granted, and the case set for briefing.
According to one academic study, a petition in a non-pauper case (in which the petitioner is able to pay the usual $300 filing fee) “is over 46 times more likely to be granted following a CVSG.” Every relisted case is back to be considered another time at the next conference.
Last week, SCOTUS set three petitions – all of which raise the same question – for a second relist. The Court will consider whether to hear the trio at its next conference, set for October 29th. If certiorari is granted, it could alter felony drug distribution cases involving physicians.
Currently, a physician can be convicted of dispensing controlled substances in violation of 21 USC 841(a) if the dispensing is “outside the usual course of professional practice” or “for other than a legitimate medical purpose. ” In Naum v. United States and Coonce v. United States, the question raised is whether the government may merely prove it was either one – “outside the usual course of professional practice” – or the other – for other than a legitimate medical purpose – but not necessarily both.
In Ruan v. United States, the question is related. To ensure that physicians are not convicted for merely negligent conduct, courts generally permit doctors to advance a “good faith” defense. Ruan asks whether a physician alleged to have prescribed controlled substances outside the usual course of professional practice may be convicted under 841(a)(1) without regard to whether, in good faith, he or she “reasonably believed” or “subjectively intended” that his prescriptions fall within that course of professional practice.
Naum v. United States, Case No 20-1480 (cert pending)
Coonce v. United States, Case No 20-7934 (cert pending)
Ruan v. United States, Case No 20-1410 (cert pending)
– Thomas L. Root