Whether the Ruan standard of proof applies to prosecutions under 21 U.S.C. § 856(a)(1) for authorized healthcare providers

QUESTION PRESENTED Petitioner Clemons, an advanced nurse practitioner authorized by the Drug Enforcement Administration to prescribe controlled substances under the supervision of a physician who was also authorized, was initially charged with two counts of conspiracy to distribute Schedule II controlled substances outside the usual course of professional practice and not for a legitimate medical purpose, two substantive counts of distribution of controlled substances outside the usual course of professional practice and not for a legitimate medical purpose. Mrs. Clemons was acquitted of all those charges. Mrs. Clemons was also charged with two counts of violations of 21 U.S.C. § 856(a)(1), in that she did “knowingly and intentionally open, use, and maintain a business . . . for the purpose of illegally distributing and dispensing Schedule II controlled substances outside the scope of professional practice and not for a legitimate medical purpose.” Mrs. Clemons was convicted of both these counts. The question presented in this case is whether this Court’s recent ruling in Ruan v. United States, __ S.Ct. __, 2022 WL 2295024, Case No. 20-1410 (2022), interpreting 21 U.S.C. § 841, also applies to prosecutions in which authorized healthcare providers are charged with maintaining a drug-involved premises under 21 U.S.C. § 856(a)(1) for, in the course of their employment at a licensed pain management clinic, prescribing controlled substances without a legitimate medical purpose and outside the scope of professional practice, and, under Ruan, once there is proof that a healthcare provider is authorized by the DEA to prescribe controlled i substances under the Controlled Substances Act, the government is required to prove “that a defendant knew or intended that his or her conduct was unauthorized”, Id., at 15, and that proof is to be evaluated based on a subjective standard and not an objective one.