Pharmacist Sues Alabama State Board of Pharmacy Over Emergency Rules
A pharmacist from Jefferson County has launched a lawsuit against the Alabama State Board of Pharmacy. She claims the agency’s adoption of emergency rules is illegal and aims to impose new fines, which she alleges is an effort to generate revenue in violation of state law designed to prevent such actions.
The complaint, submitted on October 1 in the Montgomery County Circuit Court by Dr. Emily Singletary Pinon, a practicing pharmacist in Bibb County, asserts that the emergency rule passed on August 20 contradicts both the Alabama Administrative Procedure Act and recently enacted Act 2025-372, which sought to limit excessive penalties by the board.
In her lawsuit, Pinon is seeking a declaration that the emergency regulations are invalid, an injunction against their enforcement, and reimbursement for fines imposed under these regulations. Her attorney, Joseph C. Krebs, contends that the rule was created without a legal basis and is part of a broader pattern of misconduct by the board.
The lawsuit states, “This lawsuit challenges a state agency that once again crossed the line.” It argues that the board used its emergency powers, not to address an immediate threat, but to extend a previously questioned revenue and enforcement strategy.
Under the regulations adopted in August, fines for late renewals were significantly increased. Pharmacies could face a $1,000 penalty for late renewals, while pharmacists and technicians face similar fees. Additionally, some penalties exceeded $1,500, plus $400 for each bill associated with shipments or prescriptions.
The board claims its emergency rule complies with Act 2025-372, but the lawsuit counters that this justification is “legally insufficient.” It argues that state law only allows for emergency rule-making in instances of “imminent danger to public health, safety, or welfare” or compliance with federal regulations.
The complaint emphasizes, “No such imminent danger existed at the time of the adoption,” stating that the board failed to provide a proper written finding of imminent danger as required by the APA.
Krebs also suggests that the emergency designation was simply an excuse to bypass public comment processes and quickly increase fines, undermining the intentions of recent reform efforts.
Act 2025-372 was passed by the Legislature in May after years of scrutiny regarding the Board of Pharmacy’s enforcement practices and financial decisions. Lawmakers expressed frustration with reports of high fines for relatively minor violations.
This new law limits late renewal penalties to $10 per month for individuals and $25 per month for businesses, directly addressing what was seen as “excessive and arbitrary fines.” Krebs commented, “These people already had their licenses. They just forgot to renew them… But instead of a small late fee, the board ends up charging $1,000 per shipment.” The fines can escalate quickly.
According to the complaint, the board swiftly ignored these changes, approving the emergency rule in August that effectively reinstated hefty fines recently repealed by Congress.
Krebs stated, “The board ignored the law in order to maintain a revenue source.” The complaint alleges that the emergency regulations were passed in direct violation of the law and sidestepped Congress’ directives, primarily for financial gain.
It also claims the board tried to obscure its financial practices. The August regulations included provisions stating that “administrative fines and non-disciplinary violations are not considered public records,” which Krebs says violates the state’s open records law.
Krebs remarked, “In my opinion, this is basically extortion. They charge large amounts, settle quietly, and keep records private so the public doesn’t find out.”
Witnesses later testified that they didn’t recognize an emergency prior to the adoption of the rules, indicating they rushed to pass the bill to clear disciplinary cases and to impress lawmakers.
The lawsuit highlights ongoing financial irregularities, including payroll records indicating over $4 million of annual income and numerous transfers of more than $100,000 across accounts over several months in 2025. The complaint suggests these actions demonstrate a “pattern of mismanagement and deliberate concealment.”
Krebs stated, “Regulators that rely on funds raised from licensees to survive stop being regulators and start becoming businesses.” He emphasized the desire among his clients and fellow pharmacists for transparency and accountability from governing bodies.
“They’re tired of being treated like a state ATM,” Krebs added. “If the law says there’s a cap on the fine, there’s a cap on the amount. You can’t just say it’s an emergency and ignore the law.”
