1st Amendment Court Losses ‘Threaten FDA Premarket Approval System’
Continued government losses in lower courts involving First Amendment-related off-label drug marketing cases raise the specter that FDA’s entire pre-market approval regime could be in jeopardy, according to University of Arizona law professor Christopher Robertson. Writing in an Arizona Legal Studies discussion paper, Robertson notes how the U.S. Supreme Court in recent years as “expanded the reach of the First Amendment in many domains – from video games and dog-crush videos to campaign finance and military honors. If the Supreme Court takes an off-label drug marketing case and embraces the same First Amendment logic that is percolating with scholars and in the lower courts, it would allow a drug maker to get FDA approval for any one use that it chose, but then market the drug for every other use, even where safety and efficacy are unknown.”
Robertson has examined First Amendment arguments about speech, truth, prior restraints, discrimination and other core doctrines and finds that if they were valid, they would not be limited to the off-label world. They would undermine FDA’s premarket approval system, he warns. “If the First Amendment protects a right to promote unproven uses, then it does so for their new and old drugs alike,” he writes. “Then, upstart drug makers will be able skip the FDA altogether, proceeding straight to market, just like the snake-oil salesmen that motivated the creation of the FDA in the first place.”
Robertson concludes that because the stakes are high, courts should tread carefully when addressing First Amendment issues because they are likely to “dismantle a key part of the modern regulatory state.”