Law Center Search Results

The MCLA filed an amicus brief in support of PhRMA's challenge to a Minnesota law that constitutes a per se takings of PhRMA's members' property without just compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment. The law at issue, the Alec Smith Insulin Affordability Act, seeks to achieve a laudable policy goal of improving access to insulin, but does so in an unconstitutional way: forcing pharmaceutical manufacturers to give insulin to state residents, on the state’s prescribed terms, at no charge to the recipients and without compensating the manufacturers in any way. NAM filed an amicus brief in the District of Minnesota arguing that under the U.S. Supreme Court's per se takings doctrine the government has a categorical duty to pay just compensation for physical takings of property and that efforts to distinguish the Act at issue in this case are meritless. As the Court has explained, government cannot force some companies alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole. Any holding to the contrary would fly in the face of binding precedent and would undermine the security of property rights not just for insulin manufacturers, but for businesses across every industry sector. Unfortunately, on March 15, 2021, the court granted the state’s motion to dismiss the complaint, holding that the state provides an adequate method for PhRMA’s members to seek compensation for any taking—i.e., by bringing an inverse condemnation suit in state court to seek compensation for having to give away insulin under the statute.