Ruan v. United States
BrynoDC Coverage 1 video
Overview
Overview
The Supreme Court addressed the mental state required for criminal prosecution of physicians who prescribe controlled substances outside the usual course of professional medical practice, resolving whether the government must prove a doctor knew their prescribing was unauthorized or merely that they issued prescriptions that turned out to be unlawful. A distinction with major consequences for physicians treating chronic pain patients.
The Facts
Facts
Shakeel Ruan and Xiulu Ruan were physicians who operated pain clinics and were prosecuted under 21 U.S.C. § 841 for distributing controlled substances 'not for a legitimate medical purpose' and 'outside the usual course of professional practice.' At trial, the district court refused to instruct the jury that the government must prove the doctors knew their conduct fell outside professional norms; instead, the objective standard, whether their prescribing was in fact outside norms, was used. Both physicians argued a subjective good-faith defense should have been available.
The Issue
Issue
Whether, when a physician is charged with unlawfully distributing controlled substances under 21 U.S.C. § 841, the government must prove the physician knew or intended that the prescriptions were unauthorized and outside the usual course of professional practice, or whether an objective standard applies.
The Rules
Rule
Staples v. United States (1994) and Rehaif v. United States (2019) hold that criminal statutes are generally construed to require a defendant's knowledge of the facts making their conduct unlawful, absent clear congressional intent otherwise. 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) makes it unlawful to 'knowingly or intentionally' distribute a controlled substance except as authorized. The authorized-prescription exception incorporates a scienter requirement as to the authorization itself.
The Application
Analysis
The Court applied Staples and Rehaif to the § 841(a) authorization exception, holding that because the statute requires action "knowingly or intentionally," the doctors' subjective awareness of whether their prescribing fell outside the usual course of professional practice was essential to liability. The trial court's refusal to instruct the jury that the government must prove the physicians knew their conduct was unauthorized, instead using an objective standard, violated this scienter requirement and improperly shifted the burden to whether the prescriptions were in fact unlawful rather than whether the doctors intended them to be. By requiring proof of the doctors' knowledge regarding authorization status, the Court restored a good-faith defense and prevented criminal liability for prescriptions that the physicians subjectively believed fell within legitimate professional boundaries.
The Conclusion
Conclusion
Decided June 27, 2022. The Court held 9-0 that the government must prove that a defendant doctor knowingly or intentionally dispensed controlled substances outside the ordinary course of professional practice. Not merely that the prescriptions were objectively unlawful. The ruling restored a good-faith defense for physicians and repudiated the objective-standard approach used by many circuits, significantly altering opioid-prescription prosecutions.
Flag an issue
This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support