United States v. RX Depot, Inc.

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
PUBLISH
February 22, 2006
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Counter-
Defendant-Appellant,

v.

RX DEPOT, INC., corporation; RX OF
CANADA, LLC, corporation; CARL
MOORE, individual; DAVID No. 05-5003
PEOPLES, individual,

Defendants-Counter-
Claimants-Appellees.

----------------------------------

WASHINGTON LEGAL
FOUNDATION,

Amicus Curiae.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Oklahoma
(D.C. No. CV-03-616-EA(M))

Mark Reiling Freeman, Appellate Staff, Civil Division, U.S. Department of
Justice (Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, David E. O’Meilia, United
States Attorney, Scott R. McIntosh, Appellate Staff, Civil Division, U.S.
Department of Justice, Alex M. Azar II, General Counsel, Sheldon T. Bradshaw,
Chief Counsel, Food and Drug Division, Gerald F. Masoudi, Acting Chief
Counsel, Food and Drug Division, Eric M. Blumberg, Deputy Chief Counsel,
Litigation, Michael M. Levy, Associate Chief Counsel for Enforcement, United
States Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the General Counsel,
Of Counsel, with him on the briefs), Washington, D.C., for Plaintiff-Counter-
Defendant-Appellant.

Fred E. Stoops, Sr. (E. Diane Hinkle, with him on the brief), Tulsa, Oklahoma, for
Defendants-Counter-Claimants-Appellees.

Daniel J. Popeo, Richard A. Samp, Counsel of Record, Washington Legal
Foundation, Washington, D.C., filed an amicus curiae brief on behalf of
Defendants-Counter-Claimants-Appellees.

Before HENRY, McWILLIAMS and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

MURPHY, Circuit Judge.

I. Introduction

Appellees Rx Depot, Inc., Rx of Canada, LLC, Carl Moore, and David

Peoples (collectively “Rx Depot”) facilitated the sale of prescription drugs from

Canada to customers in the United States. The United States brought suit against

Rx Depot, alleging its business practices violated provisions of the Federal Food,

Drug and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”), 21 U.S.C. §§ 301–397. Rx Depot admitted to

violating the Act and entered into a consent decree of permanent injunction.

Subsequently, the United States sought disgorgement of Rx Depot’s profits. The

district court denied disgorgement, concluding it was not an available remedy

-2-
under the FDCA as a matter of law. We exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1291. Because the FDCA invokes courts’ general equity jurisdiction and

does not prohibit disgorgement by clear legislative command or necessary and

inescapable inference, we reverse and remand.

II. Background

Rx Depot helped consumers in the United States obtain prescription drugs

from Canada at reduced prices. A customer with a prescription from an American

physician could download forms from Rx Depot’s website or visit one of Rx

Depot’s storefront affiliates to order medications. Rx Depot then transmitted the

customer’s forms, prescription, and payment information to cooperating Canadian

pharmacies. A Canadian physician would rewrite the prescription, which was

then filled by a Canadian pharmacy and sent directly to the customer in the United

States. Rx Depot received a ten to twelve percent commission for each sale they

facilitated.

The United States filed a civil action alleging Rx Depot’s activities violated

provisions of the FDCA. Specifically, the Government alleged Rx Depot violated

§ 381(d)(1) by reimporting prescription drugs originally manufactured in the

United States and § 355(a) by introducing new drugs into interstate commerce

without FDA approval. The government sought a temporary and permanent

injunction and other equitable relief. The district court entered a preliminary

-3-
injunction ordering Rx Depot to discontinue its business activities. The parties

then agreed to, and the district court approved, a consent decree of permanent

injunction. In the consent decree, Rx Depot admitted to violating the FDCA and

agreed not to resume its business operations. The consent decree left “to the

discretion of [the district court] the issue of what, if any, equitable relief,

including restitution and/or disgorgement, should be awarded to [the United

States].”

Subsequently, the district court denied restitution, reasoning Rx Depot’s

customers did not lose money in their transactions because they purchased

medications at reduced prices. The district court initially concluded disgorgement

would be an appropriate remedy. Upon reconsideration, however, the district

court determined disgorgement was not available under the FDCA as a matter of

law. Although the FDCA invokes courts’ equity jurisdiction, the district court

determined the Act’s express provision of other remedies and legislative history

create a necessary and inescapable inference that Congress intended to restrict

courts’ power to order disgorgement. The United States appeals only the district

court’s denial of disgorgement.

III. Discussion

We review questions of statutory interpretation de novo. Employers

Reinsurance Corp. v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co., 358 F.3d 757, 774 (10th Cir.

-4-
2004). The FDCA provides, “[t]he district courts of the United States and the

United States courts of the Territories shall have jurisdiction, for cause shown to

restrain violations of [the FDCA].” 21 U.S.C. § 332(a). The issue before this

court is whether this statutory grant of jurisdiction enables district courts to order

disgorgement in appropriate cases.

In Porter v. Warner Holding Co., the Supreme Court held when Congress

invokes the equity jurisdiction of courts in a statute, “all the inherent equitable

powers of the [courts] are available for the proper and complete exercise of that

jurisdiction,” unless the statute, by “clear and valid legislative command” or

“necessary and inescapable inference,” restricts the forms of equitable relief

authorized. 328 U.S. 395, 398 (1946). The Court in Porter was examining

whether § 205(a) of the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942 (“EPCA”) 1

permitted federal courts to order restitution of rents collected in excess of

statutory maximums. Id. at 396. The Court determined restitution was authorized

by the statute because § 205(a) invoked courts’ general equity jurisdiction and the

Section 205(a) provided:
1

[T]he Administrator [of the Office of Price Administration] may
make application to the appropriate court for an order enjoining . . .
acts or practices [in violation of the statute] . . . and upon a showing
by the Administrator . . . [of] such acts or practices a permanent or
temporary injunction, restraining order, or other order shall be
granted without bond.
Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, § 205(a), 56 Stat. 23, 33.

-5-
statute did not expressly or impliedly preclude restitution. Id. at 397–98, 403.

Moreover, the Court noted because the suit involved the public interest and not

merely a private controversy, courts’ “equitable powers assume[d] an even

broader and more flexible character.” Id. at 398.

Arguably, the Court’s decision in Porter also relied in part on the broad

language of § 205(a), which authorized “any . . . other order.” See id. at 399.

The Court’s subsequent decision in Mitchell v. Robert De Mario Jewelry, Inc.,

however, demonstrates that such inclusive language is not required. 361 U.S.

288, 291 (1960); see also Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Lennen, 732

F.2d 1495, 1506 (10th Cir. 1984). In Mitchell, the Court determined the Fair

Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) authorizes federal courts to order reimbursement

of lost wages to employees who are discriminated against or unlawfully

discharged for filing complaints under the Act. Id. at 296. The Court relied

exclusively on language in the statute granting courts authority “for cause shown,

to restrain violations of [the FLSA].” Id. at 289, 291. The Court observed that

the absence of language in the statute affirmatively confirming the power of

courts to order reimbursement did not preclude such relief in light of the statute’s

grant of general equity jurisdiction. Id. at 291. The Court explained, “[w]hen

Congress entrusts to an equity court the enforcement of prohibitions contained in

a regulatory enactment, it must be taken to have acted cognizant of the historic

-6-
power of equity to provide complete relief in the light of statutory purposes.” Id.

at 291–92. Accordingly, under Porter and Mitchell, when a statute invokes

general equity jurisdiction, courts are permitted to utilize any equitable remedy to

further the purposes of the statute absent a clear legislative command or necessary

and inescapable inference restricting the remedies available.

Amicus argues our analysis of the remedies available under the FDCA

should be guided by Meghrig v. KFC Western, Inc. instead of Porter and Mitchell.

Meghrig, 516 U.S. 479 (1996). Meghrig held the grant of general equity

jurisdiction in the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act’s (“RCRA”) citizen

suit provision 2 does not authorize courts to order restitution of past cleanup costs.

Id. at 487. The plaintiff in Meghrig owned property contaminated with petroleum

products. Id. at 481. After having the waste removed and disposed of, the

plaintiff brought suit against a former property owner seeking recovery of cleanup

costs the plaintiff had expended. Id. at 481–82. In concluding the remedy was

not available under RCRA, the Court recognized, but did not overrule, Porter’s

and Mitchell’s holding that a statutory grant of general equity jurisdiction

authorizes courts to use all traditional equitable powers. Id. at 487; see also

2
RCRA’s citizen suit provision authorizes district courts “to restrain any
person who has contributed or who is contributing to the past or present handling,
storage, treatment, transportation, or disposal of any solid or hazardous waste
. . . , to order such person to take such other action as may be necessary, or both .
. . .” 42 U.S.C. § 6972(a).

-7-
United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Coop., 532 U.S. 483, 496 (2001)

(citing Porter in a case decided after Meghrig for the proposition that courts

sitting in equity “have discretion unless a statute clearly provides otherwise”);

Miller v. French, 530 U.S. 327, 340–41 (2000) (same). Instead, the Court merely

identified RCRA as a statute that fit into the exceptions recognized by Porter and

Mitchell. Meghrig, 516 U.S. at 487. In particular, the Court determined RCRA

contained a clear legislative command and concluded Congress did not intend to

permit recovery of past cleanup costs. Id. at 484–88. The Court also determined

the recovery of past cleanup costs was not consistent with the statutory purposes

of RCRA. Id. at 483.

First, the Court reasoned the clear language of RCRA’s citizen suit

provision precludes an order of restitution for past cleanup costs. Id. at 486.

RCRA’s citizen suit provision permits suit “against any person . . . who has

contributed or who is contributing to the past or present handling, storage,

treatment, transportation, or disposal of any solid or hazardous waste which may

present an imminent and substantial endangerment to health or the environment . .

. .” 42 U.S.C. § 6972(a)(1)(B). The Court observed that the requirement that

waste “may present an imminent . . . endangerment” demonstrated the provision

was directed only at harm that threatens to occur in the immediate future.

Meghrig, 516 U.S. at 485–86 (emphasis added). Thus, it concluded, costs for the

-8-
past cleanup of waste that no longer poses a danger to health or the environment

are not recoverable. Id.

Second, the Court found evidence that Congress did not intend to authorize

restitution of past cleanup costs in both the structure of RCRA and its relation to

another environmental statute. RCRA prohibits citizen suits when either the EPA

or the State has commenced a separate enforcement action. 42 U.S.C. §

6972(b)(2)(B) & (C). Thus, if RCRA permitted restitution for past cleanup costs,

it would only provide compensation in those cases in which waste problems are

not severe or substantial enough to attract governmental attention. Meghrig, 516

U.S. at 486–87. The Court rejected this result as wholly irrational, concluding

Congress could not have intended to provide compensation for individuals with

minor waste problems while leaving individuals with severe or substantial waste

problems without a remedy. Id.

The Court’s analysis also relied on significant differences between RCRA

and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability

Act (“CERCLA”). CERCLA, which was enacted several years after RCRA,

contains a citizen suit provision which mimics RCRA’s and authorizes courts “to

order such action as may be necessary to correct” violations of the Act. Id. at

485. Unlike RCRA, however, CERCLA also contains an explicit provision

permitting the recovery of remediation costs. Id. (citing 42 U.S.C. §

-9-
9607(a)(4)(B)). The Court concluded the absence of similar language in RCRA

compelled an inference that Congress did not intend to provide past cleanup costs

under RCRA because it would have been unnecessary for Congress to specifically

enumerate the remedy in CERCLA if it was already encompassed within the

statute’s grant of general equity jurisdiction. Id. at 485, 487.

Finally, the Court noted an award of past cleanup costs is inconsistent with

RCRA’s purposes. Id. at 483. The primary purposes of RCRA, according to the

Court, are to reduce the generation of hazardous and solid waste and ensure its

proper treatment, storage, and disposal, not to effectuate the cleanup of waste

sites or to compensate those who have remediated waste sites. Id.

Thus, rather than overruling or limiting Porter’s and Mitchell’s general rule

that a grant of equity jurisdiction enables courts to order any form of equitable

relief, Meghrig merely demonstrates that a statute’s particular characteristics may

preclude application of the rule. See Meghrig, 516 U.S. at 487. Additionally,

Meghrig is distinguishable from the present case, and from Porter and Mitchell,

because it involved a controversy between private parties relying on a statutory

provision for private causes of action, not an enforcement action by the

government to protect the public. As the Court pointed out in Porter, “equitable

powers assume an even broader and more flexible character” in suits involving

the public interest. 328 U.S. at 398. Thus, Meghrig’s restrictive view of the

-10-
remedies available under RCRA’s citizen suit provision is likely due in part to the

private nature of actions brought under the provision. See United States v. Price,

688 F.2d 204, 213–14 (3d Cir. 1982) (observing that 42 U.S.C. § 6973, a RCRA

provision which authorizes the EPA to bring suit to restrain violations of the Act,

confers upon courts broad authority to grant equitable relief). For these reasons,

the general rule announced in Porter, and followed by Mitchell and Meghrig,

guides our analysis. 3

3
Amicus contends that by implying additional remedies in a statute where
Congress authorized only specified forms of relief, Mitchell exemplifies the type
of analysis the Supreme Court once employed in implying private rights of action.
Amicus notes that the Supreme Court abandoned implying private rights of action
in Alexander v. Sandoval, and argues the Court similarly abandoned implying
equitable remedies in Meghrig. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (2001); Meghrig v. KFC
Western, Inc., 516 U.S. 479 (1996). As discussed above, Meghrig did not
overrule or limit Porter and Mitchell. Mitchell v. Robert De Mario Jewelry, Inc.,
361 U.S. 288 (1960); Porter v. Warner Holding Co., 328 U.S. 395 (1946). To the
extent amicus argues Sandoval should persuade this court that the reasoning of
Porter and Mitchell have been abandoned by the Supreme Court, we disagree.
The line of cases from J.I. Case Co. v. Borak to Sandoval discusses the
circumstances in which courts should imply a right of action allowing private
parties to sue to enforce a statute when the statute itself does not explicitly
authorize any such action. J.I. Case, 377 U.S. 426, 431–33 (1964), abrogated by
Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (implying private right of action because it effectuated
the purpose of the statute); Sandoval, 532 U.S. at 293 (refusing to imply private
right of action where there was no evidence Congress intended to provide one).
These cases are not applicable here for two reasons. First, we are not being asked
to imply a private right of action under the FDCA. Second, while the statutes at
issue in J.I. Case and Sandoval did not explicitly authorize private rights of
action, the FDCA, and the statutes at issue in Porter, Mitchell, and Meghrig,
contain an explicit grant of general equity jurisdiction. Although that grant does
not enumerate all available forms of equitable relief, a general grant of equity
jurisdiction has long been recognized as authorizing courts to employ all their

-11-
 Section 332(a) of the FDCA invokes the equity jurisdiction of courts using

the same statutory language the Supreme Court construed in Mitchell to authorize

all traditional equitable remedies. Compare 21 U.S.C. § 332(a) (“district courts .

. . shall have jurisdiction, for cause shown to restrain violations”), with 29 U.S.C.

§ 217 (“district courts . . . shall have jurisdiction, for cause shown, to restrain

violations”); see Mitchell, 361 U.S. at 289, 291–92. Disgorgement is a traditional

equitable remedy. FTC v. Gem Merch. Corp., 87 F.3d 466, 469 (11th Cir. 1996).

Moreover, because the present action was brought by the government to protect

the public health and safety, courts’ equitable jurisdiction under the statute

“assume[s] an even broader and more flexible character.” Porter, 328 U.S. at

398. Thus, disgorgement is available under the FDCA unless (1) there is a clear

legislative command or necessary and inescapable inference prohibiting

disgorgement or (2) disgorgement is inconsistent with the purposes of the FDCA.

Rx Depot and amicus first contend the text of the FDCA limits the remedies

available under the Act to forward-looking remedies. They argue the term

“restrain” in § 332(a) envisions stopping ongoing violations of the Act or

traditional equitable powers. See Porter, 328 U.S. at 398. Thus, there is a
statutory anchor for the equitable remedies here that is not present in cases where
private rights of action are implied. For these reasons, we decline amicus’
invitation to construe broadly the reasoning of Sandoval as overruling dissimilar,
long-standing precedent. See State Oil Co. v. Khan, 522 U.S. 3, 20 (1997) (“it is
th[e] [Supreme] Court’s prerogative alone to overrule one of its precedents”).

-12-
preventing future ones, not punishing past violations. Thus, they urge, the

backward-looking remedy of disgorgement is expressly prohibited by the statute.

In Mitchell, the Supreme Court interpreted the statutory command “to

restrain violations” to permit the arguably backward-looking remedy of

restitution. 361 U.S. at 296; see also Atchison, 732 F.2d at 1506–07.

Subsequently, in Meghrig, the Court observed that the term “restrain” in RCRA

envisions forward-looking, prohibitory injunctions. 516 U.S. at 484. In that case,

however, the Court also relied heavily on other language expressed and implied in

the statute in concluding restitution of past cleanup costs was not available. See

id. at 483–87. Moreover, the Court did not explicitly overrule Mitchell’s holding

that backward-looking remedies are permitted under a grant of authority to

restrain violations. In light of these considerations, we do not think the presence

of the term “restrain” in a statutory grant of general equity jurisdiction is

dispositive evidence of Congress’s intent to limit remedies to those that are

forward-looking. 4

4
It is not clear that disgorgement is solely a backward-looking remedy. One
purpose of disgorgement is to deter future violations of the law by making illegal
conduct unprofitable. See Porter, 328 U.S. at 400. When disgorgement is
ordered to prevent future violations of the law it is a forward-looking remedy.
See e.g., SEC v. First Jersey Sec., Inc., 101 F.3d 1450, 1475 (2d Cir. 1996)
(noting primary purpose of disgorgement under federal securities laws is forward-
looking deterrence); United States v. Carson, 52 F.3d 1173, 1182 (2d Cir. 1995)
(observing that disgorgement of recently acquired profits may serve forward-
looking purpose of preventing future violations); cf. United States v. Lane Labs-

-13-
 Rx Depot and amicus also rely on United States v. Philip Morris USA, Inc.

in arguing that a statutory grant of equity jurisdiction “to restrain violations”

authorizes only forward-looking remedies. 396 F.3d 1190 (D.C. Cir. 2005). In

Philip Morris, a divided panel of the District of Columbia Circuit held

disgorgement was not available under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt

Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961–68. Id. at 1202. RICO

authorizes district courts

to prevent and restrain violations of [RICO] by issuing appropriate
orders, including, but not limited to: ordering any person to divest
himself of any interest, direct or indirect, in any enterprise; imposing
reasonable restrictions on the future activities or investments of any
person . . . ; or ordering dissolution or reorganization of any
enterprise . . . .

18 U.S.C. § 1964(a). Citing Meghrig, the court reasoned the statutory language

“to prevent and restrain” limited courts to ordering forward-looking remedies

aimed at preventing future violations of the Act. Id. at 1199. But see id. at

1220–22 (Tatel, J., dissenting) (arguing that Porter and Mitchell, not Meghrig,

control). The court also relied on the fact that the remedies enumerated in the

statute’s jurisdictional grant are all forward-looking. Thus, the court applied the

canons noscitur a sociis and ejusdem generis to conclude that any authorized

remedies beyond those specifically mentioned in the statute must be similarly

USA Inc., 427 F.3d 219, 229 (3d Cir. 2005) (noting restitution is forward-looking
because it can serve deterrent function).

-14-
forward-looking. Id. at 1200. But see id. at 1224 (Tatel, J., dissenting)

(questioning the applicability of the canons in light of the statute’s command that

the list of remedies is not exhaustive).

Although we express no opinion regarding whether, or in what

circumstances, disgorgement is authorized under RICO, Philip Morris is

inapposite to our decision here because the court relied on statutory language in

RICO not present in the FDCA. See id. at 1199 (“In the RICO Act, Congress

provided a statute granting jurisdiction defined with the sort of limitations not

present in the FLSA or the EPCA.”). In any event, we note that Philip Morris did

not question the continued validity of Porter and Mitchell, the cases we rely on

here. See id. at 1200 (ruling out disgorgement remedy using Porter test). 5

Rx Depot and amicus next contend that because the FDCA explicitly

authorizes certain remedies, we should be reluctant to infer additional remedies.

Defendants and amicus fail to recognize that by granting courts general equity

jurisdiction, Congress authorized all traditional equitable remedies. As the Court

noted in Mitchell, “[w]hen Congress entrusts to an equity court the enforcement

5
Two other circuits have concluded RICO does not categorically prohibit
disgorgement. See Richard v. Hoechst Celanese Chem. Group, Inc., 355 F.3d
345, 354–55 (5th Cir. 2003); Carson, 52 F.3d at 1181. In both cases, however,
the courts went on to determine disgorgement was not appropriate under the facts
of the particular cases before them. Richard, 355 F.3d at 354–55; Carson, 52
F.3d at 1181–82.

-15-
of prohibitions contained in a regulatory enactment, it must be taken to have acted

cognizant of the historic power of equity to provide complete relief in the light of

statutory purposes.” 361 U.S. at 291–92. Thus, we need not infer any remedies;

rather, all equitable remedies are available unless Congress’s express provision of

other remedies creates a necessary and inescapable inference that those remedies

are exclusive.

In Porter, the Court determined the express provision of certain remedies in

the EPCA did not create a necessary and inescapable inference limiting courts’

authority to order unenumerated equitable remedies. 328 U.S. at 402. In addition

to general equity jurisdiction, the EPCA provided for criminal, civil, and

administrative remedies. Specifically, individuals faced criminal fines and

imprisonment for violations of the Act. EPCA, § 205(b), 56 Stat. 23, 33.

Individuals injured by a violation of the act could file a civil suit seeking treble

damages plus attorneys’ fees. Id. § 205(e), 56 Stat. at 34. If an individual was

prevented from bringing a civil suit for various reasons, the Administrator of the

Office of Price Administration (“Administrator”) could sue for damages on behalf

of the United States. Id. Finally, the Administrator had authority to suspend a

violator’s license. Id. § 205(f)(2), 56 Stat. at 35. Despite these express remedies,

the Court in Porter concluded the grant of general equity jurisdiction in the EPCA

was not restricted. Porter, 328 U.S. at 402.

-16-
 The express remedies provided in the FDCA are similar to those available

under the EPCA. In addition to general equity jurisdiction, the FDCA explicitly

provides for criminal, civil, and administrative remedies. See 21 U.S.C. § 333

(providing for criminal fines and imprisonment and civil monetary penalties); id.

§ 360h(b) & (e) (authorizing Secretary of Health and Human Services

(“Secretary”) to order recall, repair, replacement, or refund of purchase price for

medical devices); id. § 350a(e)(1)(B) (authorizing Secretary to recall adulterated

or misbranded infant formula); id. § 360pp(a) & (b) (granting district courts

equity jurisdiction and providing for civil monetary penalties for violation of

statutory provisions relating to electronic products). These remedies are no more

expansive or comprehensive than those found in the EPCA. Seizure is the only

express remedy provided for in the FDCA that was not also authorized by the

EPCA. Id. § 334. This single additional remedy, however, does not create a

necessary and inescapable inference that Congress intended to exclude all other

remedies.

Amicus further argues the specific authorization of restitution for certain

medical devices in one provision of the FDCA shows Congress did not intend to

allow disgorgement under another provision of the Act. The FDCA permits the

Secretary to order the manufacturer, importer, or distributor of a medical device

found in violation of the Act to refund the purchase price of the device to

-17-
customers. Id. § 360h(b)(2)(C). Before ordering a refund, the Secretary must

determine that the device presents an unreasonable risk of substantial harm to the

public health; there are reasonable grounds to believe the device is defective; the

defect was caused by the manufacturer, importer, distributor, or retailer; and other

remedies are inadequate to eliminate the risk posed by the device. Id. §

360h(b)(1)(A). Amicus contends the detailed showing required to permit

restitution is inconsistent with the view that Congress intended to provide for the

similar remedy of disgorgement upon a mere showing of a violation of the Act.

This argument is unpersuasive. Section 360h describes only the Secretary’s

powers in administering the Act. The section says nothing about remedies that

may be ordered by courts. We decline to read the FDCA’s grant of expanded

administrative powers as a diminishment of the federal courts’ judicial powers

under a grant of general equity jurisdiction. See Porter, 328 U.S. at 401–02.

This reading is especially unwarranted in light of § 360h(d), which specifically

provides that “[c]ompliance with an [administrative refund order] shall not relieve

any person from liability under Federal or State law.” 21 U.S.C. § 360h(d).

Finally, Rx Depot argues the legislative history of the FDCA, which

indicates that Congress intended seizure to be the harshest remedy available under

the Act, precludes disgorgement. We are not convinced, however, that seizure is

harsher than disgorgement in all circumstances. See United States v. Universal

-18-
Mgmt. Servs., Inc., 191 F.3d 750, 762 (6th Cir. 1999) (concluding restitution is

not necessarily harsher than seizure). Procedurally, the seizure remedy permitted

under the FDCA is arguably harsher than disgorgement. The FDCA permits

administrative seizure on the basis of an ex parte showing of reasonable belief.

21 U.S.C. § 344(g). Disgorgement, on the other hand, is only permitted after a

party is found by a court to be in violation of the Act and only at the court’s

discretion. Additionally, seizure is not necessarily harsher than disgorgement in

terms of monetary loss to a company. Seizure of a company’s inventory deprives

the company of both capital investment and potential profit, whereas

disgorgement only deprives a company of its profits. Although court-ordered

disgorgement over an extended period of time may operate as a harsher remedy

than a one-time seizure, the opposite is likely true for disgorgement ordered over

a shorter time period. Thus, even if Congress intended seizure to be the harshest

remedy available under the statute, it does not follow that Congress necessarily

and inescapabably intended to preclude disgorgement in all circumstances.

Because the FDCA does not contain a clear legislative command or compel

a necessary and inescapable inference precluding disgorgement, an order of

disgorgement is permitted if it furthers the purposes of the FDCA. See Porter,

328 U.S. at 400; Atchison, 732 F.2d at 1507. The FDCA’s primary purpose is to

protect the public health. United States v. An Article of Drug . . . Bacto-Unidisk,

-19-
394 U.S. 784, 798 (1969). To be sure, the public health is protected not only by

halting current violations of the Act, but also by deterring future violations.

Disgorgement, which deprives wrongdoers of their ill-gotten gains, deters

violations of the law by making illegal activity unprofitable. SEC v. Fischbach

Corp., 133 F.3d 170, 175 (2d Cir. 1997). As the Court noted in Porter, “[f]uture

compliance may be more definitely assured if one is compelled to restore one’s

illegal gains.” 328 U.S. at 400. Therefore, disgorgement furthers the purposes of

the FDCA.

In sum, the FDCA invokes courts’ general equity jurisdiction by

authorizing courts “to restrain violations” of the Act. This broad grant of equity

jurisdiction is not restricted by the text of the statute, its express provision of

certain legal and administrative remedies, or its legislative history. Moreover,

disgorgement furthers the purposes of the FDCA by deterring future violations of

the Act which may put the public health and safety at risk. Therefore, according

to the analysis established in Porter and Mitchell, we conclude disgorgement is

permitted under the FDCA in appropriate cases. 6

6
Because the district court determined disgorgement was not available
under the FDCA, it did not examine whether there were any ill-gotten gains to be
disgorged or whether disgorgement was appropriate under the facts of this case.
Therefore, we remand for the district court to address this issue in the first
instance. See R. Eric Peterson Constr. Co. v. Quintek, Inc. (In re R. Eric
Peterson Constr. Co.), 951 F.2d 1175, 1182 (10th Cir. 1991).

-20-
 Our determination that disgorgement is authorized by the FDCA is

supported by decisions in several other circuits. Although we are the first circuit

to address disgorgement under the FDCA, two circuits have held recently that

restitution is authorized by the Act. These decisions, and the analysis employed

by the courts in reaching them, substantiate our reasoning here.

In Universal Management, the Sixth Circuit upheld an order of restitution

requiring a party who sold adulterated medical devices to provide refunds to its

customers. 191 F.3d at 762. The court relied on Porter and Mitchell in refusing

to interpret the FDCA as limiting the equitable jurisdiction of federal courts

because it found no clear congressional intent to impose such a limit. Id. at

761–62. The court acknowledged there was some evidence of congressional

intent that seizure should be the harshest remedy available under the Act, but

concluded that such concerns were far from a clear statement from Congress to

exclude restitution, especially when it was not clear that restitution is harsher than

seizure in all circumstances. Id. at 762.

The Third Circuit similarly upheld the authority of courts to order

restitution under the FDCA in a case involving misbranding of and failure to

obtain FDA approval for dietary supplements and skin cream purported to prevent

and treat cancer. United States v. Lane Labs-USA Inc., 427 F.3d 219, 220 (3d

Cir. 2005). Applying Porter and Mitchell, the court determined that a district

-21-
court sitting in equity may order restitution unless the statute clearly limits the

court’s equitable jurisdiction or restitution does not further the purposes of the

statute. Id. at 225. The court found no evidence in the FDCA limiting equity

jurisdiction. Id. at 226. Moreover, the court determined restitution furthered the

purposes of the statute because it protected the financial interests of consumers

and deterred individuals from violating the Act. Id. at 227, 229. The court also

distinguished Meghrig and Philip Morris. Regarding Meghrig, the court noted

that the Supreme Court’s decision rested on explicit language in RCRA and the

Act’s elaborate remedial scheme, neither of which are present in the FDCA. Id.

at 231–32. The court also observed that, unlike the case before it, Meghrig did

not involve an enforcement action by the government in which equitable powers

are broader and more flexible. Id. at 231. Finally, the court noted that the

“restitution” of past cleanup costs sought in Meghrig resembled traditional

damages, and thus was different than the restitution sought under the FDCA,

which was directly traceable to the plaintiff’s illegal conduct and the harm it

caused consumers. Id. The court distinguished Philip Morris by observing that

the grant of equity jurisdiction in RICO is much narrower than that in the FDCA.

Id. at 233. Specifically, the court noted, RICO expressly enumerates specific

remedies, all of which are aimed at making it difficult or impossible to violate the

Act in the future. Id. The FDCA, on the other hand, contains no such list. Id.

-22-
 The only other circuit to address restitution under the FDCA is the Ninth

Circuit. In 1956, the court held that restitution is not available under the FDCA

in United States v. Parkinson. 240 F.2d 918, 922 (9th Cir. 1956). The court’s

decision was based on the statute’s failure to explicitly grant courts authority to

order restitution. Id. The court explained, “[t]he use of the extraordinary

remedies of equity in governmental litigation should never be permitted by the

courts unless clearly authorized by the statute in express terms.” Id. The court

distinguished Porter by noting that the EPCA was enacted in wartime and

contained explicit language, specifically the term “other orders,” authorizing the

use of remedies not enumerated in the statute. Id. at 920 & n.6. The Ninth

Circuit’s rationale in Parkinson, however, was subsequently rejected by the

Supreme Court in Mitchell. In Mitchell, the Court reaffirmed Porter in holding

equitable remedies need not be expressly authorized by a statute; rather, a grant of

general equity jurisdiction is sufficient to enable a court to exercise all traditional

equitable powers absent explicit or implicit evidence to the contrary. Mitchell,

361 U.S. at 290–292. Moreover, the Court noted “the applicability of this

principle is not to be denied, either because the Court [in Porter] considered a

wartime statute, or because, having set forth the governing inquiry, it went on to

find in the language of the statute affirmative confirmation of the power to order

reimbursement.” Id. at 291. Because Parkinson’s reasoning was later rejected by

-23-
Mitchell, it is not persuasive. See Lane Labs, 427 F.3d at 233–34 (rejecting

reasoning of Parkinson).

IV. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, this court REVERSES the district court’s denial

of disgorgement and REMANDS the matter for further proceedings not

inconsistent with this opinion.

-24-