The U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, on August 6, 2025, upheld a lower court’s dismissal of a lawsuit filed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, along with the Dayton Area Chamber of Commerce, Ohio Chamber of Commerce, and Michigan Chamber of Commerce, challenging the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program, a key component of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) signed into law in 2022. The program allows Medicare to negotiate prices for certain high-cost prescription drugs, aiming to reduce costs for beneficiaries and save the program an estimated $98.5 billion over a decade.

The lawsuit, initially filed in June 2023, argued that the program violated the First, Fifth, and Eighth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, as well as separation of powers, claiming it gave excessive authority to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and imposed unfair price controls. The U.S. Chamber sought a preliminary injunction to halt the program, but U.S. District Judge Michael Newman, a Trump appointee, denied this in September 2023, stating the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success or irreparable harm. Newman also dismissed the case in August 2024, finding that the regional chambers (Dayton, Ohio, and Michigan) lacked standing to sue on behalf of their members, as their interests were not sufficiently aligned with the pharmaceutical companies’ concerns, such as AbbVie and its subsidiary Pharmacyclics, which were involved in the suit. The judge noted that the U.S. Chamber might have standing if it filed a new suit in a different venue.

The 6th Circuit, in a 12-page opinion written by Senior Judge Ronald Gilman (a Clinton appointee), affirmed the dismissal, agreeing that the regional chambers lacked associational standing. The court emphasized that the Dayton Chamber’s purpose of promoting regional business was not germane to the lawsuit’s focus on the constitutionality of a federal program affecting pharmaceutical manufacturers. The court also criticized the lawsuit as a potential “stalking horse” for forum shopping, as the plaintiffs lacked a direct connection to Ohio. However, the ruling clarified that regional chambers could challenge federal laws with broader impact in some cases, and a lack of corporate headquarters in a region is not necessarily fatal to standing, though it was insufficient here due to the disconnect with the Dayton Chamber’s purpose.

The decision marks the 10th court ruling in favor of the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program, which has faced multiple legal challenges from the pharmaceutical industry, including lawsuits from companies like AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Johnson & Johnson, and the trade group PhRMA. None of these challenges have succeeded in blocking the program, which has already negotiated price cuts ranging from 38% to 79% for 10 drugs, set to take effect in January 2026, with projected Medicare savings of $6 billion in the first year. Advocacy groups like Patients For Affordable Drugs hailed the ruling as a victory for over 9 million Medicare beneficiaries who will benefit from lower drug prices.

The U.S. Chamber could appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, though no comment from them was reported immediately following the ruling. Meanwhile, other lawsuits against the program are ongoing in various federal courts, with potential appeals in the Second, Third, Fifth, and D.C. Circuits, which could lead to conflicting rulings and elevate the issue to the Supreme Court. The program’s voluntary nature – allowing drugmakers to opt out of Medicare entirely – has been a key factor in courts rejecting claims of unconstitutional price controls or takings, as participation is not mandatory.

This ruling reinforces the program’s legal standing, allowing Medicare to continue negotiating drug prices, a process that began with the first 10 drugs announced in August 2023, including treatments for diabetes, blood clots, and cancer from companies like Merck, Novo Nordisk, and AbbVie. The program remains a significant policy achievement for the Biden administration, despite ongoing industry opposition.