A pharmacy filed a motion arguing that selling execution drugs is a form of political speech protected under the First Amendment. The pharmacy has provided drugs for 16 Missouri executions and wants to remain anonymous. In Doe v. Reed, Chief Justice John Roberts said parties resisting disclosure could prevail if they demonstrate that disclosure would result in “threats, harassment or reprisals….” (BuzzFeed, September 25, 2016, by Chris McDaniel and Chris Geidner)
Noah Feldman, Bloomberg News, September 26, 2016, argues that the pharmacy should lose since the act of selling drugs is action rather than speech. Actions can be subject to regulation including public disclosure, and in particular for-profit sales to the government should be open. The pharmacy claims their sales are not commercial acts but ones expressing their backing of executions.