Federal prosecutors initiated a controversial case against FedEx Corporation, alleging the company knowingly facilitated the shipment of illegal drugs in interstate commerce and engaged in money laundering. The core of the accusation rested on FedEx’s routine operations: delivering packages—specifically those originating from online pharmacies—to their recipients and accepting payment for the service.
The legal challenge centers on the common carrier exemption within federal statutes. When Congress authorized the shipment of prescription medications and controlled substances, it specifically incorporated exceptions for common carriers within the relevant legislation to prevent the very type of “gotcha” prosecution seen here. These exemptions are codified in the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) and the Food, Drug, & Cosmetic Act (FDCA).
Interpreting the Common Carrier Exemption
The central issue is the authoritative interpretation of these exemptions. Legal commentators, such as Cory Andrews of the Washington Legal Foundation, have noted the novelty of the case. Historically, for the 45 years prior to this indictment, federal prosecutors had not sought to apply the CSA in such a manner against a common carrier simply for performing its designated function of transporting goods.
Consequently, federal courts had not been compelled to generate case law that definitively interprets the scope and application of these statutory exemptions for common carriers. The prosecution of FedEx, therefore, was viewed by some as a significant overreach of federal prosecutorial discretion, raising questions about whether the government was attempting to impose a duty upon carriers to actively “snoop” into the contents of packages, contrary to the historical intent of the law.
The case brought the long-standing, uninterpreted common carrier immunity provisions under intense scrutiny, highlighting the need for judicial clarity on a carrier’s liability when transporting regulated or contraband goods in the usual course of business.
