## Facts

- The Illinois Governor issued an emergency administrative rule requiring pharmacies to dispense FDA-approved contraceptives, including emergency contraception, “without delay” upon receiving a valid prescription, and to order the drug if not in stock upon patient request.
- Licensed pharmacists and corporate owners of Division I pharmacies maintained written policies refusing to purchase, stock, or dispense drugs they believed could have an abortifacient effect, including Plan B.
- When presented with a prescription for such drugs, the pharmacies returned the prescription so the patient could fill it elsewhere.
- Plaintiffs alleged the rule conflicted with their moral and religious beliefs and exposed them to professional discipline if they continued their policies.
- Plaintiffs filed a multi-count action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, asserting violations of Illinois conscience and religious freedom statutes and the First Amendment (facial and as-applied challenges).
- The circuit court dismissed with prejudice for lack of standing, lack of ripeness, and failure to exhaust administrative remedies; a divided appellate court affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether the pharmacists and pharmacy corporations had standing to bring a pre-enforcement challenge to the dispensing rule.
2. Whether the dispute was ripe for judicial review absent prior enforcement or discipline.
3. Whether declaratory relief was unavailable due to failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

## Decision

- The Illinois Supreme Court reversed the appellate court and remanded.
- The Court held plaintiffs had standing because they alleged a distinct, concrete threatened injury fairly traceable to the rule and redressable by declaratory and injunctive relief.
- The Court held the claims were ripe because the rule was in effect, applied to plaintiffs, and created an immediate conflict between compliance and threatened sanctions.
- The Court allowed the declaratory judgment action to proceed without requiring plaintiffs to first incur discipline or complete administrative processes.
- The Court did not reach the merits of the statutory or constitutional challenges to the rule.

## Legal Principles

- Standing requires an actual or threatened injury to a legally cognizable interest that is distinct and palpable, traceable to the challenged action, and likely to be prevented or remedied by the requested relief.
- A regulated party need not expose itself to enforcement penalties before seeking a declaration of rights when a binding rule creates a present conflict and credible threat of sanction.
- Ripeness for declaratory relief turns on whether an actual, present controversy exists between parties with adverse legal interests, not on whether enforcement has already occurred.
- Exhaustion of administrative remedies does not bar a declaratory action when the central dispute is the validity and legality of an administrative rule and postponing review would impose significant burdens.

## Conclusion

The Illinois Supreme Court held that pharmacists and pharmacy owners could bring a pre-enforcement declaratory action challenging a contraceptive-dispensing regulation because they alleged a concrete threatened injury and a present dispute under an already-effective rule, and the case was remanded for litigation of the substantive statutory and constitutional claims.


Morr-Fitz, Inc. v. Blagojevich, 231 Ill. 2d 474, 901 N.E.2d 373 (Ill. 2008)