The Arkansas State Board of Pharmacy has stopped enforcing a first-of-its-kind law regulating pharmaceutical manufacturer distribution networks after a federal court found it likely unconstitutional. Here is where things stand for pharmacies on both sides of the network access issue.
The Arkansas State Board of Pharmacy voted on July 28, 2026, to stop enforcing Act 630, a 2025 law restricting pharmaceutical manufacturers’ use of limited distribution networks and exclusive distribution networks for specialty and other high-cost medications.1 The vote followed a federal court’s preliminary finding that the law is likely unconstitutional. The Board’s decision has immediate implications for pharmacies seeking access to limited distribution drugs, pharmacies already participating in restricted networks, and the future of state efforts to regulate pharmaceutical distribution networks.
What Act 630 Was Supposed to Do
Signed into law in April 2025, Act 630 targeted manufacturers that restrict distribution of medications covered by state government or public health plans to a limited network of pharmacies. Once a manufacturer’s limited distribution drug (LDD) arrangement had been in effect for more than three months, the manufacturer had to demonstrate local access through academic medical centers, geographic diversity within Arkansas, and participation opportunities for local for-profit and nonprofit pharmacies. Any manufacturer maintaining an LDD arrangement for six months or longer had to petition the Board, which could approve a restricted network only after a public hearing and only if the network still allowed qualified in-state pharmacies to apply to provide same-day patient access.
Noncompliant manufacturers faced fines of $10,000 per day and exclusion from payment under state and public plans, with compliance required by September 1, 2026.1 In practice, the Act would have required manufacturers, and the specialty, infusion, or long-term care pharmacies already operating under an existing LDD or exclusive distribution (EDD) arrangement, to accommodate additional in-state pharmacies or justify the arrangement to the Board.
Why a Federal Court Enjoined It
Act 630 did not survive its first constitutional challenge. Novartis sued in June 2025, arguing that the law violated the Dormant Commerce Clause, the doctrine barring states from enacting protectionist measures that favor in-state commerce over out-of-state competitors. On May 17, 2026, U.S. District Judge Lee Rudofsky agreed and preliminarily enjoined the Board from enforcing Act 630 against Novartis, finding that the law “overtly discriminates against interstate commerce in favor of in-state commerce.”2 The court relied in part on the Eighth Circuit’s decision in Jones v. Gale, which struck down an Arkansas law drawing distinctions based on physical, in-state presence rather than nondiscriminatory service standards.3 Because Act 630 tied network participation to a physical Arkansas location, the court found a similar constitutional defect.
Bristol Myers Squibb followed with its own suit in June 2026, arguing that six of its specialty products would be subject to Act 630’s mandates and that the law was also preempted by FDA risk evaluation and mitigation strategies (REMS) requirements.4 Accredo Health Group filed a related challenge as well.2 Facing three lawsuits, the Arkansas Attorney General’s Office told the Board on July 28, 2026, that it had concluded Act 630 is likely unconstitutional and that an appeal was very unlikely to succeed. The Board responded by voting not to enforce the Act against any manufacturer, to stop processing pending network applications, and to authorize settlements in the pending suits.1
This is the second Arkansas drug-access law to be blocked on similar grounds, following Act 624, which would have barred PBMs from owning retail pharmacy permits and was blocked on the same Dormant Commerce Clause theory roughly a year earlier.5
Where This Leaves Pharmacies
The practical effect of the Board’s vote differs depending on where a pharmacy sits relative to a given manufacturer’s distribution network.
Pharmacies seeking access.
Pharmacies relying on Act 630 to gain entry to a manufacturer’s LDD should not expect the statute to provide that access. The September 1, 2026, compliance deadline is not being enforced, and manufacturers are not required to submit network applications or restructure distribution networks under Arkansas law.
Pharmacies within an existing LDD or EDD arrangement.
For specialty, infusion, and long-term care pharmacies whose exclusive or limited distribution status is part of their business model, the Board’s non-enforcement position removes, for now, the primary state-law mechanism that could have forced those arrangements open. LDD and EDD status therefore remains governed by the manufacturer’s own network participation criteria rather than by Act 630.
No final judgment has been entered.
The Board’s vote is an enforcement decision, not a court ruling, so Act 630 technically remains on the books while settlements are finalized.
A legislative rewrite is possible.
Act 630’s sponsor has indicated that the litigation record will guide an amended bill addressing the physical-presence defect the courts identified.6
Pharmacies should monitor future Arkansas legislative sessions rather than treat the current posture as permanent.
The Broader Legislative Landscape
Act 630’s outcome is relevant beyond Arkansas as other states have considered, or may consider, similar measures directed at pharmaceutical manufacturer distribution networks.
Geography-based conditions are constitutionally vulnerable.
The Novartis court noted that nondiscriminatory alternatives, such as a direct same-day access mandate or objective service and accreditation standards untethered to a pharmacy’s physical location, would have been more likely to survive review.2 States drafting future legislation, and pharmacies evaluating how such bills might affect existing network arrangements, should closely examine whether a proposed law conditions access specifically on in-state physical presence, as opposed to neutral, verifiable service capabilities.
340B contract pharmacy laws present a distinct legal question.
More than a dozen states enacted 340B contract pharmacy access laws in 2025.7 Those statutes generally restrict manufacturers from limiting covered entities’ access to 340B-priced drugs through contract pharmacy arrangements, rather than mandating that manufacturers open a limited distribution network to any qualifying in-state pharmacy. That structural difference means 340B contract pharmacy laws present different legal questions from those raised by Act 630, and Act 630’s fate should not be read as predicting the outcome of separate 340B contract pharmacy litigation.
How Frier Levitt Can Help
Frier Levitt advises pharmacies on all sides of manufacturer distribution and network questions, including pharmacies seeking access to limited or exclusive distribution drugs, pharmacies whose LDD or EDD status is core to their business, and covered entities navigating 340B contract pharmacy arrangements. Our attorneys can help evaluate how Act 630, similar state legislation, manufacturer network criteria, and evolving litigation may affect existing or prospective distribution arrangements and pharmacy operations. Contact Frier Levitt to discuss how these developments may affect your organization.
1. Tess Vrbin, “Arkansas suspends enforcement of law preventing limits on which pharmacies can sell medications,” Arkansas Advocate (July 29, 2026), https://arkansasadvocate.com/2026/07/29/arkansas-suspends-enforcement-of-law-preventing-limits-on-which-pharmacies-can-sell-medications/; Act 630 of 2025 (H.B. 1531), codified at Ark. Code Ann. § 20-64-105, https://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/Bills/Detail?id=hb1531&ddBienniumSession=2025%2F2025R
2. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. v. Griffin, No. 4:25-cv-00633-LPR, Order Granting Prelim. Inj. (E.D. Ark. May 17, 2026), https://arkansasadvocate.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/Act-630-injunction.pdf
3. Jones v. Gale, 470 F.3d 1261 (8th Cir. 2006)
4. Bristol Myers Squibb Co. v. Mack, No. 4:26-cv-00618 (E.D. Ark. filed June 23, 2026); “Bristol Myers Follows Novartis, Sues Arkansas Over Pharmacy Law,” Bloomberg Law (June 24, 2026), https://news.bloomberglaw.com/health-law-and-business/bristol-myers-follows-novartis-sues-arkansas-over-pharmacy-law
5. Tess Vrbin, “Federal judge blocks Arkansas’ restrictions on pharmacy benefit managers,” Arkansas Advocate (July 28, 2025), https://arkansasadvocate.com/2025/07/28/federal-judge-blocks-arkansas-restrictions-on-pharmacy-benefit-managers/
6. Vrbin, “Arkansas suspends enforcement,” Arkansas Advocate (July 29, 2026), supra note 1
7. “2025 in Review: 13 States Enacted 340B Contract Pharmacy Access Laws and 7 Passed Provider Reporting Requirements,” 340B Report (Dec. 18, 2025), https://340breport.com/2025-in-review-13-states-enacted-340b-contract-pharmacy-access-laws-and-7-passed-provider-reporting-requirements/
Senior Associate
