IMO, the female Pharmacist told the patient that she knew that the pt needed the medication, the pharmacist CONFIRMED that she had met her responsibility of “corresponding responsibility”
The statement that a pt must see a practitioner within a certain number of miles. In June of 2024 the SCOTUS decided that NO FEDERAL AGENCY had the statutory authority to create new regulations and/or interpretations of the federal statue that they were in charge of enforcing.
The phrase “corresponding responsibility” is found within the Controlled Substances Act’s implementing regulations, specifically in 21 CFR § 1306.04(a). This regulation states that while the responsibility for proper prescribing of controlled substances lies with the practitioner, a corresponding responsibility rests with the pharmacist who fills the prescription. Both practitioner and pharmacist are subject to penalties should prescriptions for controlled substances be issued or filled not in the usual course of professional practice or for illegitimate medical purposes.
Exact Language from 21 CFR § 1306.04(a)
“The responsibility for the proper prescribing and dispensing of controlled substances is upon the prescribing practitioner, but a corresponding responsibility rests with the pharmacist who fills the prescription. An order purporting to be a prescription issued not in the usual course of professional treatment or in legitimate and authorized research is not a prescription within the meaning and intent of section 309 of the Act (21 U.S.C. 829) and the person knowingly filling such a purported prescription, as well as the person issuing it, shall be subject to the penalties provided for violations of the provisions of law relating to controlled substances.”
This requirement is a cornerstone of DEA enforcement regarding pharmacist conduct and has significant regulatory and legal implications in pharmacy practice.
The Supreme Court, in June 2024, officially overturned the Chevron doctrine—a foundational legal principle for administrative law used for the past 40 years. In a 6-3 decision, the Court held that judges, not federal agencies, must decide the meaning of ambiguous federal laws, ending the longstanding practice of courts deferring to agencies’ interpretations when the statute is unclear.
Background and Chevron Doctrine
The Chevron doctrine stemmed from the 1984 case Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council. Under Chevron, courts would uphold an agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous statute if it was reasonable, giving agencies significant leeway to interpret and implement federal law.
The 2024 Decision
The pivotal case—Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo—made clear that courts are now required to make their own independent judgments about statutory ambiguities. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, called Chevron “fundamentally misguided” and argued that the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) requires courts, not agencies, to decide legal questions.
The Court found that Congress had not delegated law-interpreting power to agencies simply because a statute is ambiguous. Instead, the majority held that agencies do not have special competence to resolve statutory ambiguities—courts do.
Dissents and Concerns
Justice Elena Kagan led the dissent, warning the decision “will cause a massive shock to the legal system.” She expressed concern that shifting this power to the courts could undermine expertise-driven regulatory decisions—especially in complex areas like health, environmental, or financial regulation.
Practical Consequences
-
Courts are no longer obligated to defer to agency expertise just because a law is ambiguous; instead, they must decide such questions themselves.
-
The ruling potentially opens the door for more challenges to federal regulations and could slow the regulatory process, as agencies may have less authority and predictability in interpreting statutes.
-
Previous cases decided under Chevron are not automatically reopened or invalidated, but the approach to interpreting new or existing regulations will be fundamentally different going forward.
Summary Table: Key Changes
| Before (Chevron Doctrine) | After Jun 2024 SCOTUS Decision |
|---|---|
| Courts defer to reasonable agency interpretations | Courts make independent judgments on law |
| Agencies had leeway with ambiguous statutes | Agencies’ interpretations no longer binding |
| Doctrine used in environmental, health, labor | Courts likely to scrutinize more agency rules |
| Applied for 40 years, cited in 18,000+ cases | Agencies may face legal uncertainty, more litigation |
This decision marks the end of judicial deference to agency interpretations under the Chevron doctrine, fundamentally altering administrative law and federal regulatory practice in the United States.
Kentucky does not have a specific mileage limitation for pharmacists filling controlled substance prescriptions from out-of-state practitioners. Kentucky law focuses instead on verifying the legitimacy of the prescription, ensuring the prescriber is properly authorized, and that the prescription follows all required documentation and prescribing limits for that particular practitioner type (such as APRN or PA), as if the prescriber were practicing in Kentucky
Pharmacists must still use professional judgment and verify the legitimacy of the patient-practitioner relationship, but there is no state law setting a maximum distance or mileage from the prescriber’s practice to the pharmacy or patient for out-of-state controlled substance prescriptions. All other federal and state requirements for controlled substance prescriptions remain in force, including e-prescribing mandates.
In summary, Kentucky law does not impose a mileage or distance restriction, but pharmacists must comply with practitioner authority, prescription validity, and documentation requirements when filling out-of-state controlled substance prescriptions.
While traveling an unusual or long distance may be considered a “red flag” by regulatory agencies, pharmacies, or insurers—and may prompt additional scrutiny as a possible sign of diversion—there is no federal statutory or regulatory limit on the distance itself. Practitioners and pharmacists must exercise professional judgment and document the validity and appropriateness of the prescribing relationship, but the act of traveling a long distance alone is not prohibited under federal law.
In summary, the CSA does not contain any rule or statutory provision that limits the number of miles a patient may travel for a controlled substance office visit or prescription.The federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) and DEA regulations do not specify any maximum mileage or distance that a patient cannot exceed when traveling for an office visit with a practitioner to obtain a controlled substance prescription. The law requires only that prescriptions are issued for a legitimate medical purpose in the usual course of professional practice, and that practitioners see patients at appropriate intervals, but no explicit mileage or distance limitation exists in the CSA itself.
While a long distance between the patient’s home and the prescriber may be considered a “red flag” suggesting diversion or improper prescribing, it is not in itself prohibited by federal law—such encounters may require closer scrutiny but do not violate the CSA strictly on grounds of travel distance. Instead, prescribers and pharmacists must properly document the medical necessity and legitimacy, regardless of the patient’s travel distance.
Filed under: General Problems
Hi Steve, Regarding The Chevron Doctrine article, I take that as good news for us, and especially anyone who is having trouble with the law and Medical issues. But I haven’t heard of anything about it coming up in any Court Proceedings.
Thank You for commenting on that subject!
Brenda Price
I am not an attorney, but our screwy legal system will probably require EACH RED FLAG be taken to the SCOTUS to be declared unconstitutional. at a few million dollars each in legal fees. BUT, my understanding of our legal system.. those RED RULES the DEA can continue to use/enforce them until they are declared unconstitutional.