Opinion ID: 199407
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Background Facts on Standing and Jurisdiction to Consider Group or Association Contentions

Text: 90 Did the district court have authority, and does the Court of Appeals have authority, to consider positions stated in briefs on behalf of groups or associations seeking to represent the interests of their members that they claim are materially affected by orders made, or that might be made, in the district court and on appeal? 91 The case before us is styled Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, Plaintiff, Appellee, v. Kevin Concannon, Commissioner, Maine Department of Human Services, and Maine Attorney General, Defendants, Appellants. 92 Plaintiff/Appellee's CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT says that plaintiff/appellee, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, by and through its undersigned counsel, and, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26.1, states that it has no parent company and that no publicly held company owns any of its stock. 93 In its brief, which uses the short title PhRMA to designate itself, Plaintiff/Appellee refers to additional characteristics and rights of PhRMA. 94 + It has the ability to challenge adverse treatment under the Maine Act, including a challenge on preemption grounds. Plaintiff/Appellee's Brief at 34. 95 + It has members who are regulated by and make payments consistent with the provisions of the Medicaid prescription drug program. Id. at 36 n.21. 96 Also, on the basis of the limited information available in the record, I infer that some of PhRMA's members are Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs). No party or amicus, or attorney for a party or amicus, has called attention to any case explicitly declaring that PBMs have standing and a United States district court has jurisdiction to consider either a facial challenge or an as-applied challenge by a PBM to a state statute like Maine's Act to Establish Fairer Pricing for Prescription Drugs, and I am aware of none. Treating the issue as one of first impression, I would recognize both standing and jurisdiction, in the United States District Court for the District of Maine, and on appeal. In the world outside the court system, as a pragmatic matter no other person or entity is as active and effective in protecting benefits and beneficiaries of availability of pharmacy products at reasonable cost as PBMs. It is entirely appropriate in these circumstances that the standing of PBMs be recognized in United States district courts and on appeal from adjudications interpreting and applying state legislation affecting the benefits and interests of beneficiaries of marketing of pharmacy products. As the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has previously stated, Article III standing is largely . . . albeit not entirely . . . a practical jurisprudence. New Hampshire Hemp Council v. Marshall, 203 F.3d 1, 4 (1st Cir. 2000) (citing 13 Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Edward H. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3531.1, at 352, 362-63 (2d ed.1984)). 97 The basis for the foregoing conclusions is a principled proposition that applies broadly. I state explicitly, for the sake of clarity, that in my view it applies to each of the following contentions, in addition to the standing of PhRMA and the standing of PBMs to make the contention stated above: 98 (A) claims of violation of the Supremacy Clause; 99