Changeflow GovPing Healthcare 340B Drug Pricing Litigation Update Covers 50+ ...
Routine Notice Added Final

340B Drug Pricing Litigation Update Covers 50+ Cases

Favicon for www.jdsupra.com JD Supra Healthcare
Published
Detected
Email

Summary

McDermott Plus published a weekly roundup of 340B drug pricing litigation covering more than 50 cases in federal and state courts for April 7–13, 2026. Key developments include the Fifth Circuit affirming denial of preliminary injunctions in Mississippi contract pharmacy cases, the Sixth Circuit staying a Tennessee case pending similar proceedings, a new drug manufacturer complaint challenging government audit enforcement and patient-definition determinations, and a trade association filing challenging a Washington state contract pharmacy law.

What changed

This document is a weekly litigation roundup summarizing procedural and substantive developments in over 50 active 340B drug pricing cases across federal and state courts. Key developments include: Fifth Circuit affirming denial of preliminary injunctions in Mississippi contract pharmacy cases; Sixth Circuit staying Tennessee case pending similar proceedings; a drug manufacturer filing a new complaint challenging the government's refusal to enforce audit findings and its determination of "patient" under the 340B program; a trade association filing a complaint challenging a Washington state contract pharmacy law; and amicus briefs filed in First Circuit Rhode Island and Maine cases.

For pharmaceutical manufacturers, healthcare providers, and covered entities operating under the 340B program, this roundup signals ongoing litigation risk around contract pharmacy arrangements across multiple states. Parties should monitor the Sixth Circuit's resolution of pending cases and First Circuit briefing, as outcomes may affect the viability of state-level contract pharmacy laws and the scope of 340B patient definitions.

What to do next

  1. Monitor for updates on 340B litigation developments

Archived snapshot

Apr 15, 2026

GovPing captured this document from the original source. If the source has since changed or been removed, this is the text as it existed at that time.

April 15, 2026

This Week in 340B: April 7 – April 13, 2026

Reuben Bank, Emily Jane Cook, Abygail Hoey, Margaret Houtz, Sydney Merritt Martinez, Kelsey Reinhardt McDermott Will & Schulte + Follow Contact LinkedIn Facebook X Send Embed

Find the week’s updates on 340B litigation to help you stay in the know on how 340B cases are developing across the country. Each week we comb through the dockets of more than 50 340B cases to provide you with a quick summary of relevant updates from the prior week in this industry-shaping body of litigation. Get more details on these 340B cases and all other material 340B cases pending in federal and state courts with the 340B Litigation Tracker.

Issues at Stake: Contract Pharmacy; Other

  • In two cases brought by drug manufacturers challenging a New Mexico state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the plaintiffs filed notices of supplemental authority.
  • In a case brought by a drug manufacturer challenging a Tennessee state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the court stayed the case pending resolution of two similar cases at the Sixth Circuit.
  • In two cases challenging a Mississippi state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s denial of each plaintiff’s preliminary injunction.
  • A drug manufacturer filed a complaint against the government, arguing that the government’s (1) refusal to enforce findings from its proposed audits of covered entities and (2) determination regarding what constitutes a “patient” is unlawful.
  • A trade association of drug manufacturers filed a complaint to challenge a Washington state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements.
  • In a case brought by a drug manufacturer against the government, an intervenor filed an unopposed motion to intervene, and the government granted the motion.
  • In a case brought by a covered entity against the government, the covered entity filed an objection to non-parties’ notice of related cases and a supplemental brief.
  • In a case brought by a trade association of drug manufacturers challenging a Rhode Island state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, the plaintiff appellant filed its reply brief in the First Circuit.
  • In a case brought by a trade association of drug manufacturers challenging a Maine state law governing contract pharmacy arrangements, AHA, 340B Health, the Main Hospital Association, and ASHP filed an amicus brief in the First Circuit in support of defendant appellee.
  • In one case by a healthcare center alleging that the defendants conspired to restrict access to 340B drug discounts, defendants filed a memorandum in support of their motion to dismiss. [View source.]

Send Print Report

Related Posts

Latest Posts

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.
Attorney Advertising.

©
McDermott Will & Schulte

Written by:

McDermott Will & Schulte Contact + Follow Reuben Bank + Follow Emily Jane Cook + Follow Abygail Hoey + Follow Margaret Houtz + Follow Sydney Merritt Martinez + Follow Kelsey Reinhardt + Follow more less

PUBLISH YOUR CONTENT ON JD SUPRA

  • ✔ Increased readership
  • ✔ Actionable analytics
  • ✔ Ongoing writing guidance Join more than 70,000 authors publishing their insights on JD Supra

Start Publishing »

Published In:

Amicus Briefs + Follow Appeals + Follow Constitutional Challenges + Follow Covered Entities + Follow Drug Pricing + Follow Federal Court Litigation + Follow Health Care Providers + Follow Pending Litigation + Follow Pharmaceutical Industry + Follow Pharmacies + Follow Preliminary Injunctions + Follow Prescription Drugs + Follow Section 340B + Follow State and Local Government + Follow Trade Associations + Follow Constitutional + Follow Health + Follow Science, Computers & Technology + Follow more less

McDermott Will & Schulte on:

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra: Sign Up Log in ** By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.* - hide - hide

Get daily alerts for JD Supra Healthcare

Daily digest delivered to your inbox.

Free. Unsubscribe anytime.

About this page

What is GovPing?

Every important government, regulator, and court update from around the world. One place. Real-time. Free. Our mission

What's from the agency?

Source document text, dates, docket IDs, and authority are extracted directly from McDermott Will & Schulte.

What's AI-generated?

The summary, classification, recommended actions, deadlines, and penalty information are AI-generated from the original text and may contain errors. Always verify against the source document.

Last updated

Classification

Agency
McDermott Will & Schulte
Published
April 15th, 2026
Instrument
Notice
Legal weight
Non-binding
Stage
Final
Change scope
Minor

Who this affects

Applies to
Pharmaceutical companies Healthcare providers
Industry sector
3254 Pharmaceutical Manufacturing
Activity scope
Drug pricing Pharmaceutical litigation Contract pharmacy arrangements
Geographic scope
United States US

Taxonomy

Primary area
Healthcare
Operational domain
Legal
Topics
Pharmaceuticals

Get alerts for this source

We'll email you when JD Supra Healthcare publishes new changes.

Free. Unsubscribe anytime.

You're subscribed!