Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America v. County of Alameda
Opinion
Opinion
Smith, J.
The Supreme Court “has adopted what amounts to a two-tiered approach to analyzing state economic regulation under the Commerce Clause.” Broum-Forman Distillers Corp. v. N.Y. State Liquor Auth., 476 U.S. 573, 578-79 , 106 S.Ct. 2080 , 90 L.Ed.2d 552 (1986).
Id. at 579 , 106 S.Ct. 2080 (citations omitted). Because the Alameda County Safe Drug Disposal Ordinance (the “Ordinance”) passes constitutional muster under this two-tiered approach, we affirm the district court.
FACTS
The facts are not in dispute. Alameda County (“Alameda”) passed the Ordinance in July of 2012. The Ordinance requires that prescription drug manufacturers, who either sell, offer for sale, or distribute “Covered Drugs” in Alameda, operate and finance a “Product Stewardship Program.” The term “Covered Drug” includes “all drugs in 21 U.S.C. § 321 (g)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act ... including both brand name and Generic Drugs.” To operate and finance a Product Stewardship Program, the manufacturers must provide for the collection, transportation, and disposal of any unwanted Covered Drug — no matter which manufacturer made the drug in question.