Federal Courts Shouldn ’t “Abstain” from Hearing Federal Civil Rights Claims

Ilya Shapiro andMallory ReaderHawaii sued Bristol ‐​Myers Squibb (BMS) and Sanofi for failing to make the untrue statements that their life‐​saving drug, Plavix, is less effective for Asian and Pacific Islander patients. It’s not just the companies that believe these statements to be false and controversial; the scientific community stron gly agrees. Prominent cardiologists have criticized the disclaimer requirement and a growing body of evidence shows that Plavix works as well, if not better, for patients of Asian descent.In seeking to compel this speech in an area of scientific controversy —and punish its absence—Hawaii discriminates based on the speaker (by targeting only pharmaceutical companies) as well as the content and viewpoint expressed.What ’s worse, the suit appears to have been initiated to achieve private financial gain. It was planned and marketed by private contingency‐​fee lawyers who succeeded in selling their services to the state, which only pays if it wins.In a traditional enforcement matter, government attorneys have a professional and ethical obligation to serve the public interest —not necessarily to win the case, but to make a sound use of public resources and see that justice is done. Here, instead, the higher the verdict the more the lawyers make without regard to medical consequences or constitutional values.BMS and Sanofi raised these concerns, but their First Amendment claims were dismissed by the federal...
Source: Cato-at-liberty - Category: American Health Authors: Source Type: blogs