Background
In 2024, Maryland enacted H.B. 1056, which prohibits 340B manufacturers from limiting the distribution of 340B drugs to pharmacies under contract with covered entities. Drug manufacturers and an industry trade association sued to enjoin enforcement of the statute, arguing it was preempted by federal law. The district court denied a preliminary injunction, finding the plaintiffs unlikely to succeed on the merits. This appeal followed.
The court’s reasoning
The court relied on its recent unpublished decision in Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America v. McCuskey, which held that a materially similar West Virginia statute was likely preempted by the federal 340B program. The court concluded that the district court erred as a matter of law by failing to apply the principles established in McCuskey. The court determined that the same preemption analysis applies to Maryland’s H.B. 1056.
The dissent
I dissent here for the same reasons I did in McCuskey. Maryland did not overstep its bounds by enacting H.B. 1056. I would have affirmed the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction.
Benjamin
What it means going forward
The decision vacates the lower court’s ruling and remands the case for further proceedings consistent with the Fourth Circuit’s recent preemption analysis in McCuskey, potentially leading to the issuance of a preliminary injunction against the Maryland statute.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download