AbbVie Inc. et al v. Wrigley et al

- 1 -
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
AbbVie Inc. et al.
Plaintiffs,
vs.
Drew Wrigley, in his official capacity as the
Attorney General of North Dakota, et al.,
Defendants.
AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP,
Consolidated Plaintiff,
vs.
Drew Wrigley, in his official capacity as the
Attorney General of North Dakota, et al.,
Defendants.
Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers
of America,
Consolidated Plaintiff,
vs.
Drew Wrigley, in his official capacity as the
Attorney General of North Dakota, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 1:25-cv-00081
Case No. 1:25-cv-00182
Case No. 1:25-cv-00204
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY JUDGMENT PENDING APPEAL
Case 1:25-cv-00081-DMT-CRH Document 98 Filed 07/27/26 Page 1 of 5

- 2 -
[¶ 1] 	THIS MATTER comes before the Court on a Motion for Stay of Judgment Pending Appeal
filed by North Dakota on July 7, 2026. Doc. No. 94. AbbVie Inc., AbbVie Products LLC
(collectively, 	“AbbVie”), 	and 	Pharmaceutical 	Research 	and 	Manufacturers 	of 	America
(“PhRMA”) filed their Responses on July 21, 2026. Doc. Nos. 95–96. North Dakota filed a Reply
on July 22, 2026. Doc. No. 97. For the reasons stated below, the Motion is DENIED.
DISCUSSION
[¶ 2] 	The Court granted, in part, Summary Judgment and a permanent injunction to Plaintiffs on
April 27, 2026. Doc. No. 83. North Dakota appealed on April 29, 2026. Doc. No. 85. North Dakota
did not seek a stay at that time. The State argues three things have prompted the request: the Eighth
Circuit’s decision in Novartis v. Hanaway, upholding a similar Missouri law; PhRMA v.
McCuskey in the Fourth Circuit, which the Court had found persuasive, was vacated en banc and
is in the process of being reheard; and the Fifth Circuit’s AbbVie Inc. v. Murrill decision was
denied a rehearing en banc but the panel updated its opinion to add a denouncement of the
Spending Clause argument. Doc. No. 94-1; see also Novartis v. Hanaway, --- F.4th ----, 2026 WL
1892141 (8th Cir. 2026); PhRMA v. McCuskey, 176 F.4th 830 (4th Cir. 2026) (mem) (granting
en banc hearing); AbbVie Inc. v. Murrill, --- F.4th ----, 2026 WL 1947948 (5th Cir. 2026)
(substituting opinion).
[¶ 3] 	AbbVie and PhRMA object to the stay. AbbVie argues Hanaway, McCuskey, and Murrill
do not address the arguments of this Court’s order, and only one is binding. Doc. No. 95. PhRMA
argues the two-and-a-half-month delay in seeking the stay negates the State’s claim of harm. Doc.
No. 96.
[¶ 4] 	A stay is granted if there is (1) a strong showing of likelihood of success on the merits, (2)
irreparable harm, (3) no substantial harm to other parties, and (4) an interest to the public. Nken v.
Case 1:25-cv-00081-DMT-CRH Document 98 Filed 07/27/26 Page 2 of 5

- 3 -
Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434 (2009). A stay is “an exercise of judicial discretion,” and “[t]he
propriety of its issue is dependent upon the circumstances of the particular case.” Id. at 433
(quoting Virginian Ry. Co. v. United States, 272 U.S. 658, 672–73 (1926)). The Court does not
find these factors support a stay in this particular case.
[¶ 5] 	First, stark differences exist between the Missouri law analyzed in Hanaway and North
Dakota’s. The most prominent difference is the criminal penalties attached to a violation in North
Dakota. Compare MO. REV. STAT . § 407.010–030, with N.D.C.C. § 43-15.3-08(3). As the Court
held in its Order on Summary Judgment:
State laws like North Dakota’s inhibit the ability of the government to exercise its
spending power by deterring manufacturers from participating in the program. Doc.
Nos. 28-18, ¶ 32; 70-1, ¶ 2 (both noting Bausch Health withdrew from the 340B
program in October 2025). This inhibition is especially strong when North Dakota,
unlike other states, adds criminal penalties and makes violations a class B
misdemeanor. N.D.C.C. §§ 43-15.3-08, 12.1-32-01(6). Manufacturers are forced to
decide between violation of a state law or participation in a federal program with
additional costs, which amount to the millions. AbbVie estimates North Dakota’s
change to its participation in the 340B program cost the company $10 million in
2025 and will cost another $35 million in 2026 in discounted sales it would not
make but for the law. Doc. No. 75, ¶ 9. This added cost and interference constitutes
an impermissible insertion into a federal program that Congress did not invite.
Doc. No. 83, ¶ 53. North Dakota’s law is harsher than Missouri’s. Additionally, based on the
Court’s reading of Hanaway, Missouri considered its statute a delivery statute, whereas North
Dakota considers its law as regulating price. North Dakota created its law to directly regulate “pre-
sale conditions” of “drugs available to be purchased at 340B program prices.” Doc. No. 31-1,
p. 54. Therefore, the Court is not persuaded that Hanaway and the out-of-circuit rulings prove a
success on the merits for North Dakota.
[¶ 6] 	Second, an injunction from enforcing a lawful statute is a form of irreparable injury to a
state. Tincher v. Noem, 164 F.4th 1097, 1100 (8th Cir. 2026). However, “if a statute is
unconstitutional on its face, the State may not enforce the statute under any circumstances.”
Case 1:25-cv-00081-DMT-CRH Document 98 Filed 07/27/26 Page 3 of 5

- 4 -
Schickel v. Dilger, 925 F.3d 858, 865–66 (6th Cir. 2019) (citation omitted). This Court has held
North Dakota is not likely to succeed on the merits, and therefore, the law remains unconstitutional.
Thus, the State has no harm weighing in favor of a stay.
[¶ 7] 	Third, “there can be little harm to other parties where . . . ‘a stay preserves the status
quo . . . .’” Org. for Black Struggle v. Ashcroft, 978 F.3d 603, 609 (8th Cir. 2020) (quoting New
Ga. Project v. Raffensperger, No. 20-13360, 976 F.3d 1278, 1284 (11th Cir. Oct. 2, 2020)). Here,
there have been two and a half months where the law was enjoined. Staying the injunction would
not preserve the status quo; it would just upend it again. “[W]hile the loss of money is not typically
considered irreparable harm, that changes if the funds ‘cannot be recouped’ and are thus
‘irrevocably expended.’” NIH v. Am. Pub. Health Ass’n, 145 S. Ct. 2658, 2659 (2025) (quoting
Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Scott, 561 U.S. 1301, 1304 (2010) (Scalia, J., in chambers)). The harm
to the Plaintiffs reaches into the millions that cannot be recouped.
[¶ 8] 	Fourth, the Court previously held there was not “sufficient evidence that the public interest
will be affected by the injunction” because there is no statutory mandate on how the funds are
spent and invalidating the law does not change the price paid by the public for their prescriptions.
Doc. No. 83, ¶ 73. North Dakota has not submitted any evidence to state that programs in North
Dakota have adversely affected North Dakotans in the last two and a half months since the
injunction was implemented. Therefore, the public interest factor does not weigh in favor of a stay.
CONCLUSION
[¶ 9] 	Based on the foregoing, the Court finds North Dakota has not met its burden. The Court
DENIES the Motion to Stay Judgment Pending Appeal (Doc. No. 94).
Case 1:25-cv-00081-DMT-CRH Document 98 Filed 07/27/26 Page 4 of 5

- 5 -
[¶ 10] IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED July 27, 2026.
Daniel M. Traynor, District Judge
United States District Court
Case 1:25-cv-00081-DMT-CRH Document 98 Filed 07/27/26 Page 5 of 5