The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dismissed a challenge by Bristol Myers Squibb seeking to block Hawaii’s lawsuit over the sale of the blood thinner Plavix, stating that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the case.

Hawaii sued Bristol Myers Squibb and other pharmaceutical companies in 2014 alleging that it knew that a significant portion of Hawaii’s citizens would experience worse clinical side effects than other ethnic groups when taking Plavix due to a genetic variation. The state of Hawaii also alleged that Bristol Myers Squibb intentionally concealed this fact in violation of a Hawaii statute prohibiting “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in commerce.” As a result of this suit, Bristol Myers Squibb filed a federal suit, arguing that the state of Hawaii was violating its First Amendment rights and seeking an injunction against the state court litigation. However, the District Court dismissed this action due to lack of jurisdiction. Bristol Meyers Squibb appealed.

Citing legal precedent, the Ninth Circuit also dismissed this case because “the state-court litigation is a quasi-criminal enforcement proceeding and that Younger bars a federal court from interfering with such a proceeding.” Despite Hawaii’s reliance on private counsel, the State has “the right to decide whether [litigation] should be carried out by full-time government employees or outside counsel retained for a particular case.” The court noted that the Due Process Clause permits this decision. The court further explained that Younger abstention is present in this case because  the “State’s action has been brought under a statute that punished those who engage in deceptive acts in commerce, and the State seeks civil penalties and punitive damages to sanction the companies for their allegedly deceptive labeling practices.”