Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-1410_1an2.pdf
Page Number: 31.0

Cite as:  597 U. S. ____ (2022) 

11 

ALITO, J., concurring
ALITO, J., concurring in judgment 

the  burden  of  production  is  satisfied,  the  CSA  should  be 
read  to  preserve  a  traditional  preponderance-of-the-
evidence standard for authorization defenses. 

II 
My analysis thus far establishes that authorization is an
affirmative  defense  to  liability  under  §841(a)(1),  and  the
constituents  of  that  defense  cannot  be  identified  through
brute-force application of a canon designed to identify the
elements  of  an  offense.    In  my  view,  the  contours  of  that 
defense can be elucidated only by examining the text, struc-
ture, and history of the provisions of the CSA that define it. 
I turn to that task now. 

The  authorization  relied  on  by  the  petitioners  in  these 
cases permits physicians registered with the federal Drug
Enforcement  Administration  to  prescribe  controlled  sub-
stances to patients by prescription.  §§822(b), 823(f ), 829(a). 
As  we  have  previously  interpreted  it,  this  authorization 
does not allow physicians to dispense controlled substances
by prescription for any reason they choose; instead, the au-
thorization “is limited to the dispensing and use of drugs ‘in 
the  course  of  professional  practice  or  research.’ ”    United 
States v. Moore, 423 U. S. 122, 141 (1975) (quoting §802(20) 
(1970 ed.)).

The notion of action taken “in the course of professional 
practice” is not defined in the CSA, but our precedents hold
that when Congress employs a term of art “obviously trans-
planted  from  another  legal  source,”  it  “brings  the  old  soil 
with  it.”  George  v.  McDonough,  596  U. S.  ___,  ___  (2022) 
(slip op., at 5) (quoting Taggart v. Lorenzen, 587 U. S. ___, 
___  (2019)  (slip  op.,  at  5);  internal  quotation  marks  omit-
ted).  And the notion that a prescription is authorized if it
is  issued  in  the  course  of  professional  practice  is  directly
traceable  to  the  Harrison  Act,  which  prohibited  “any  per-
son” from distributing  or dispensing coca leaves or opium