Surprise! Fifth Circuit Rejects DEA’s Longstanding Interpretation of a Pharmacist’s “Corresponding Responsibility” and “Usual Course of Professional Practice” Regulations February 26, 2026 By Andrew J. Hull & Karla L. Palmer —

https://www.thefdalawblog.com/2026/02/surprise-fifth-circuit-rejects-deas-longstanding-interpretation-of-a-pharmacists-corresponding-responsibility-and-usual-course-of-professional-practice/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=surprise-fifth-circuit-rejects-deas-longstanding-interpretation-of-a-pharmacists-corresponding-responsibility-and-usual-course-of-professional-practice One year ago, we blogged on a DEA decision revoking the registration of a Louisiana pharmacy, Neumann’s Pharmacy, LLC, based on the pharmacy’s purported violation of its “corresponding responsibility” (21 C.F.R. § 1306.04(a)) and filling of prescriptions without resolving so-called “red flags” of diversion. The pharmacy appealed the Administrator’s decision to the Fifth Circuit, arguing, in part, that DEA “misinterpreted” its own regulations. In a decision that obliterates DEA’s longstanding interpretation of a pharmacist’s “corresponding responsibility” and “usual course of professional practice” regulations–and now reflects a circuit split–the Fifth Circuit sided with the pharmacy and remanded the case back to DEA.