A Jefferson County pharmacist has filed a lawsuit against the Alabama State Board of Pharmacy, accusing the agency of adopting unlawful emergency rules to impose new fines and generate revenue in defiance of a state law designed to stop this kind of conduct.
The complaint, filed October 1 in Montgomery County Circuit Court by Dr. Emily Singletary Pinon, a licensed pharmacist practicing in Bibb County, alleges that the Board’s emergency rules, passed on August 20, violate the Alabama Administrative Procedure Act and Act 2025-372, a reform law passed earlier this year to limit excessive penalties within the agency.
In the lawsuit, Pinon seeks a declaratory judgment that the emergency rules are invalid, an injunction halting their enforcement and a refund of any fines collected under them. Her attorney, Joseph C. Kreps, argues that the rules were enacted without proper legal justification and represent an ongoing pattern of misconduct by the Board.
“This lawsuit challenges a state agency that has once again crossed the line,” the complaint states. “The Board invoked its emergency powers not to avert an immediate danger, but to prolong a revenue-raising and enforcement scheme that had already been called into question by legislators, licensees, and the public.”
The emergency rules adopted on August 20 increased non-disciplinary fines for pharmacists, technicians and pharmacies that failed to renew licenses or permits on time. Under the new penalties, a pharmacy could face a $1,000 fine for a late renewal, a pharmacist could owe $1,000, and a technician $250. Other provisions imposed additional charges per shipment or prescription, with some fines reaching more than $1,500 plus $400 per invoice.
The Board said it enacted the emergency rules to comply with Act 2025-372. But the lawsuit argues that justification is “legally insufficient” because state law allows emergency rulemaking only when an “immediate danger to the public health, safety, or welfare” exists, or when necessary to comply with a federal statute or regulation.
“No such imminent danger existed at the time of adoption,” the complaint reads. “The Board failed to make a legally sufficient written finding demonstrating immediate danger, as required by the APA.”
Instead, Kreps contends, the Board used the emergency designation as a pretext to avoid the normal public notice and comment process, rushing through higher fines in violation of both the letter and spirit of the Legislature’s reform efforts.
The Legislature passed Act 2025-372 in May after years of scrutiny over how the Board of Pharmacy handled enforcement and finances. Lawmakers had grown frustrated with reports that the agency was levying disproportionately large penalties for minor infractions.
The law capped late-renewal penalties at $10 per month for individuals and $25 per month for businesses, a direct response to what legislators described as “excessive, arbitrary fines.”
“These people already had a license. They just forgot to renew it,” said Kreps. “But instead of a small late fee, the Board would charge $1,000 per shipment or $75 per prescription. Those numbers run out of control very quickly.”
According to the lawsuit, the Board ignored those changes almost immediately. Within a couple of months, the Board approved the August 20 emergency rules that effectively reinstated the higher fines the Legislature had just abolished.
“The Board flouted the law to keep its revenue stream alive,” said Kreps. “Instead of following the Legislature’s clear directive, they passed emergency rules in complete violation of the statute. They did it because they needed the money.”
The complaint alleges that the Board attempted to conceal its financial practices from public scrutiny. It cites a provision in the August 20 rules declaring that “administrative fines and non-disciplinary violations shall not be considered public record,” a clause Kreps calls a direct violation of state open-records laws.
“That’s basically extortion, in my opinion,” said Kreps. “They charge people huge sums, settle cases quietly, and then make the records private so no one ever finds out.”
According to the filing, several board members later testified before the Legislative Sunset Committee that they did not find an emergency existed before adopting the rules. They told lawmakers they passed them to move backlogged disciplinary cases and “impress the committee.”
The lawsuit also highlights ongoing financial irregularities, including payroll records showing more than $4 million in annual salaries and benefits, and repeated transfers of $100,000 or more between accounts over several months in 2025. The complaint alleges those movements reveal a “pattern of mismanagement and deliberate concealment.”
“When you have a regulatory agency that’s dependent on the money it collects from licensees to survive, it stops being a regulator and starts being a business,” said Kreps.
Kreps said his client and other pharmacists are seeking transparency and accountability from an agency that holds power over their livelihoods.
“They’re tired of being treated like ATMs for a state agency,” said Kreps. “If the law says fines are capped, then they’re capped. You can’t just call it an emergency and ignore the law.”
