21 U.S.C. §856(a)(1), the "crack house statute", requires the Government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant, "except as authorized by this subchapter … knowingly open, lease, rent, use or maintain any place, whether permanently or temporarily, for the purpose of manufacturing, distributing, or using any controlled substance." In Ruan v. United States, ___ S.Ct. _, 2022 WL 2295024, Case No. 20-1410 (2022), this Court, interpreting 21 U.S.C. § 841, determined that where a health care professional is charged for conduct occurring within the scope of his or her practice, once a defendant proves that their conduct is "authorized" under the Controlled Substances Act, "the Government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew that he or she was acting in an unauthorized manner, or intended to do so." Id. at __ (slip op. at 3). The Court concluded that "for purposes of a criminal conviction under § 841, this requires proving that a defendant knew or intended that his or her conduct was unauthorized." Id. at __ (slip op. at 9).

The question presented is whether an authorized physician or health care professional can be convicted under 21 U.S.C. §856(a)(1) if the sole allegation of unlawful activity is the prescribing of controlled substance and the district court instructed the jury that the lawfulness of a prescription is to be determined from an "objective and not a subjective viewpoint" in contravention of this Court's decision in Ruan.

Whether an authorized physician or health care professional can be convicted under 21-U.S.C-§856(a)(1) if the sole allegation of unlawful activity is the prescribing of controlled substance and the district court instructed the jury that the lawfulness of a prescription is to be determined from an 'objective and not a subjective viewpoint' in contravention of this Court's decision in Ruan