Pharmacy Law Brief

Courts Cannot Decide Everything

Author: Joseph L. Fink III, BSPharm., JD, DSc (Hon), FAPhA, Professor of Pharmacy Law and Policy and Kentucky Pharmacists Association Professor of Leadership, Department of Pharmacy Practice and Science, UK College of Pharmacy

Question: I continue to see reports in various media outlets about court decisions of interest on a wide variety of issues and topics. That got me wondering whether courts can take on for decision any and all topics that come their way or are there limitations?

Response: The authority of a court to decide cases is referred to as the “jurisdiction” of the court. Breaking down that term to its Latin origins, that word means the authority to say (“dict”) what the law (“juris”) is. Certain courts have more expansive jurisdiction than others. Some courts have a predetermined focus; an example from the state court system would be small claims court. In Kentucky, a small claims court is limited to handling matters where the amount in controversy is $2,500 or less. Examples from the system of federal courts would include the U.S. Tax Court which is authorized to handle resolution of disputes between taxpayers and the Internal Revenue Service. A second federal example would be the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, known for quite a few years as the U.S. Court of Military Appeals.

Other courts have more expansive jurisdiction. The “standard” federal courts, i.e., U.S. District Court, or U.S. Court of Appeals, follow some basic rules of access. For a matter to be taken up by the federal court system it must fall into one of two categories of jurisdiction: [1] “Federal question”, meaning that a key issue in the matter arises under or involves federal law such as the U.S. Constitution or a federal statute or regulation; or [2] Diversity of citizenship, which exists when the parties to the legal proceeding are residents of different states. However, there is an additional requirement to gain access to the federal courts under this category –the amount at issue must exceed $75,000. If a matter falls into one of those two categories, the federal courts are said to have “exclusive jurisdiction”. That is in contrast to matters where the issue could be taken to either a federal court or a state fo

Disclaimer: The information in this column is intended for educational use and to stimulate professional discussion among colleagues. It should not be construed as legal advice. There is no way such a brief discussion of an issue or topic for educational or discussion purposes can adequately and fully address the multifaceted and often complex issues that arise in the course of professional practice. It is always the best advice for a pharmacist to seek counsel from an attorney who can become thoroughly familiar with the intricacies of a specific situation, and render advice in accordance with the full information.

rum. Those would be referred to as matters presenting “concurrent jurisdiction.” If the matter does not fit within one of the two specified categories then it must go to state court.

Another way to slice and dice this is that a court which is the first to take up a dispute would be referred to as having “original jurisdiction”. That is in contrast to a court exercising “appellate jurisdiction” when hearing an appeal for review of a decision reached by a lower court.

When a legal matter is capable of being decided by a court the issue is said to be “justiciable” If the opposite is true, i.e., the court cannot decide the matter, it is said to be nonjusticiable. If the controversy is not capable of being decided by legal principles or through the jurisdiction of a lawful court it falls in this letter classification. In other words, this is one of

a type of matter that a court cannot decide. For example, the judiciary may refuse to adjudicate claims challenging action by the executive branch of government. The court may rule that it cannot decide a matter if it decides the relevant issues are politically charged. This is because the courts are typically viewed as the apolitical, or less political, branch of government.

All this information about courts having authority to decide cases is relevant because of a ruling on a case made by the Kentucky Court of Appeals during 2019 –Seum v. Bevin, 584 S.W.3d 711 (Ky. App. 2019). The subject matter of the case may be of interest to pharmacists so a very brief review is included here.

Three Kentuckians filed a lawsuit against the Governor and Attorney General challenging a state statute