Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (March 2023) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued January 16, 1967 Decided May 22, 1967
Full case name	Abbott Laboratories, et al. v. Gardner, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, et al.
Citations	387 U.S. 136 (more) 87 S. Ct. 1507; 18 L. Ed. 2d 681; 1967 U.S. LEXIS 2974
Holding
Drug companies were not prohibited by the ripeness doctrine from challenging an FDA regulation requiring a prescription drug's generic name to appear on all related printed materials.
Court membership
Chief Justice Earl Warren Associate Justices Hugo Black · William O. Douglas Tom C. Clark · John M. Harlan II William J. Brennan Jr. · Potter Stewart Byron White · Abe Fortas
Case opinions
Majority	Harlan, joined by Black, Douglas, Stewart, White
Dissent	Fortas, joined by Warren, Clark
Dissent	Clark
Brennan took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Laws applied
Administrative Procedure Act

Wikisource has original text related to this article:

Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner

Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136 (1967), was a case heard before the United States Supreme Court. The Court held that drug companies were not prohibited by the ripeness doctrine from challenging a U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulation requiring a prescription drug's generic name to appear on all related printed materials. The government argued that the case was not ripe because the regulation had yet to be enforced. That argument failed as the Court found the issues to be fit for judicial resolution, and that the drug companies would experience substantial hardship if denied a pre-enforcement challenge to the statute. Prosecution for non-compliance was likely, civil and criminal penalties could be imposed, and the drug companies would suffer reputational damage if required to violate the regulation before challenging it in court.