Summary
The Supreme Court of Maryland answered certified questions from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland concerning whether the licensed dispensing of opioids or administration of opioid-related pharmacy benefit plans can constitute an actionable public nuisance. The Court held that such conduct does not constitute an actionable public nuisance under Maryland common law, concluding that the County’s allegations did not show interference with a common public right and that Maryland has not recognized government recovery of damages for public nuisance. The Court also emphasized the extensive federal and state regulatory framework governing pharmacies, opioid distribution, and pharmacy benefit managers.
Court
Supreme Court of Maryland
Jurisdiction
Supreme Court of Maryland
Decision date
March 23, 2026
Docket number
Misc. No. 1, September Term, 2025
Disposition
other
Questions Presented
- Under Maryland common law, can the licensed dispensing of, or administration of benefit plans for, a controlled substance constitute an actionable public nuisance?
- If such conduct could constitute a public nuisance, what are the elements of the claim and what relief may a local-government plaintiff seek?
Holdings
- No. The licensed dispensing of, or administration of benefit plans for, a controlled substance does not constitute an actionable public nuisance under Maryland common law.
- Maryland has not recognized a government actor's ability to recover damages for a public nuisance affecting the public generally.
- Even if the County could establish interference with a public right, the Court would decline to expand the common law of public nuisance to address the challenged opioid-related conduct.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…