President Biden announced a three step plan for addressing prior marijuana convictions. Federal Defense Blog answers your burning questions about this development.

Federal forfeiture and seizure in federal drug prosecutions is the quickest way for federal prosecutors to secure victory before the case starts. Federal drug seizure and forfeiture laws permit nearly unfettered seizure of property. This article describes how to fight back.

Ruan v. United States was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court increasing the standard needed to convict physicians of unlawful prescribing. Three months post Ruan, we are seeing a mixed bag of District Court decisions. Here is a breakdown of these trial court and appellate decisions.

A Puerto Rico physician was cleared of healthcare fraud charges after prosecutors dismissed charges before trial fearing an acquittal. Ronald Chapman II and Safe Harbor Group were responsible for the victory. The client is cleared and has returned back to practice as an emergency department physician.

On the heels of the recent decision in Ruan v. United States, a Florida pharmacy is at the steps of the Supreme Court arguing that the DEA has unconstitutionally encroached on the practice of pharmacies dispensing opioid prescriptions. Should the Supreme Court take up this challenge it would be in a position to extend the Ruan decision to the practice of pharmacy and restrict the DEA’s powers to discipline pharmacists.

Securing acquittal in opioid prescribing or “pill mill” cases is a daunting task. Federal criminal defense attorney Ronald Chapman is

Detroit Federal Health Care Fraud Defense Attorney Secures Another Victory. A Detroit federal jury acquitted four physicians of allegations that they engaged in a $454 million dollar healthcare fraud and opioid scheme and conspiracy spanning six years. After six weens of testimony and just ten hours of deliberations the jury acquitted the four physicians of healthcare fraud, unlawful prescribing and conspiracy.

In the unanimous Supreme Court decision, Ruan v. United States, the Supreme Court struck down the application of objective standards as a vehicle for opioid prosecutions against physicians accused of unlawful prescribing. The Supreme Court paves the way for a more tailored approach to measuring physician conduct.

With a decision on Ruan v. United States and Khan v. United States by the Supreme Court just around the corner, there are a few factual developments that give insight into the Court’s potential decision which will greatly impact opioid prescribers and pain patients.

In Shinn v. Ramirez the Supreme Court led by Justice Thomas held that a state court defendant is barred from access to federal courts if his state court claim is procedurally barred even where his counsel is ineffective. A salty dissent pointed out that innocent people will be imprisoned or even executed for failure to have a competent lawyer. Habeas relief continues to erode.

The CDC COVID-19 mask mandate has been declared unlawful by a federal judge in the Middle District of Florida. In a 59 page ruling, Judge Mizelle declared the mask mandate an unconstitutional exercise of government power. Airlines were quick to permit the widespread removal of masks.

The 2016 CDC Guideline for Prescribing Opioids is undergoing well needed change. The AMA released public comments applauding the CDC’s efforts to make some changes while declaring that it has not gone far enough to protect pain patients, prescribers, and the public.

In Arizona v. Youngblood the Supreme Court determined that a defendant is only entitled to dismissal based on destruction of evidence where it can show “bad faith” on the part of the police officers. ContraFed breaks down decisions since Youngblood and an approach for a successful “bad faith” spoliation argument.

The Department of Justice and Securities and Exchange Commission launched a novel theory of prosecution against Apostolos Trovias for selling “inside information” on the Dark Web including financial reports yet to be released.

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in Ruan v. United States and Khan v. United States, the most important opioid prescribing case since 1975. ContraFed recaps the oral argument and provides a prediction of the impending decision in this hotly debated Controlled Substance Act Case impacting physicians.

Joe Exotic AKA Joseph Maldanado received relief from the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals that sent his case back for re-sentencing. His case reveals an endemic flaw in the US Sentencing Guidelines.

The top pick on President Biden’s very short Supreme Court nomination list goes to Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson a former public defender, advisor to the sentencing commission, and D.C. District and Circuit Judge.

I’ve been waiting 10 years to see how the government attones for the circuit split in physician opioid prescribing cases, and today is the day. The Government filed its brief in Ruan v. United States, the single most important physician prescribing case of our time which will have a profound impact on pain patients and physicians. I break down their strategy.

Thousands of federal prisoners to remain out at the conclusion of the COVID-19 pandemic on home confinement according to a recent Department of Justice Policy memo.

Two Supreme Court Justices on opposite sides of the ideological spectrum raise concerns over the lack of action of the United States Sentencing commission in resolving an important guidelines dispute.