United States v. Moore
Headline: Doctors registered under the federal drug law can be prosecuted for distributing controlled substances when their conduct falls outside accepted medical practice, reversing a lower court and allowing felony drug charges against such physicians.
Holding:
- Allows felony prosecution of registered doctors who traffic drugs outside accepted medical practice.
- Affirms that registration does not provide blanket immunity from criminal drug charges.
- Practices must follow approved medical procedures to avoid felony exposure
Summary
Background
Dr. Moore, a licensed physician registered under the federal Controlled Substances Act, was indicted for distributing and dispensing methadone over a five-and-a-half month period. The indictment began at 639 counts, was reduced to 40, and a jury convicted him on 22 counts. He received long prison terms, heavy fines, and lost his medical license. The record shows he prescribed massive quantities of methadone—11,169 prescriptions filled, about 800,000 tablets—used a sliding fee tied to pills, gave minimal exams, ignored test results, and failed to supervise drug use. His FDA authorization for methadone maintenance had been revoked, and he claimed to be using a new "blockade" detox method.
Reasoning
The key question was whether being registered under the law protects a doctor from criminal prosecution under the statute that makes distribution unlawful "except as authorized." The Court rejected the lower court's view that registration alone shields all conduct. It held that only lawful acts done in the usual course of professional practice are exempt. The opinion relies on earlier cases and legislative history showing Congress meant to target trafficking and diversion, not to give blanket immunity to registrants, and found ample evidence that Dr. Moore acted outside accepted medical practice.
Real world impact
The decision makes clear that registered physicians who operate like drug sellers can face federal felony charges, not just administrative penalties. Physicians who follow approved medical procedures and the Secretary's guidance retain protection; those who go beyond accepted practice remain criminally liable. The Court remanded solely to consider a separate sentencing claim under the statute for selling to young people.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?