Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/20-1410_1an2.pdf
Page Number: 14.0

10 

XIULU RUAN v. UNITED STATES 

Opinion of the Court 

in which the “except as authorized” clause is unlike an ele-
ment, both of which rely on a different provision of the Con-
trolled  Substances  Act—§885.  Section  885  says  that  the 
Government need not “negative”—i.e., refute—“any exemp-
tion or exception . . . in any complaint, information, indict-
ment, or other pleading.”  This means that, in a prosecution
under the Controlled Substances Act, the Government need 
not refer to a lack of authorization (or any other exemption
or exception) in the criminal indictment.  Cf. United States 
v.  Resendiz-Ponce,  549  U. S.  102,  108  (2007)  (criminal  in-
dictment must set forth all elements of the charged crime). 
Section 885 also says that the Government need not “nega-
tive any exemption or exception . . . in any trial,” and that
“the burden of going forward with the evidence with respect 
to any such exemption or exception shall be upon the person
claiming its benefit,” not upon the prosecution.  Cf. Patter-
son  v.  New  York,  432  U. S.  197,  210  (1977)  (Government 
bears burden of proving all elements of charged offense).

But even assuming that lack of authorization is unlike an
element for the two purposes that §885 sets forth, those two
purposes have little or nothing to do with scienter require-
ments.  The first has to do with the indictment.  It simply
says that the Government need not set forth in an indict-
ment a lack of authorization, or otherwise allege that a de-
fendant  does  not  fall  within  the  many  exceptions  and  ex-
emptions that the Controlled Substances Act contains.  The 
Act  excepts,  for  example,  licensed  professionals  such  as 
dentists,  veterinarians,  scientific  investigators,  and  phar-
macists from the prohibition on dispensing controlled sub-
stances.  See 21 U. S. C. §802(21).  The Act also excepts em-
ployees  of  drug  manufacturers,  common  carriers,  and 
people with sick family members or pets from the prohibi-
tion  on  possessing  controlled  substances.    See  §§802(27),
822(c).  Section 885 merely absolves the Government of hav-
ing to allege, in an indictment, the inapplicability of every