write a two-part essay (1000-2000 words) that answers the following questions: Part 1 A. (30 points) What legal claims can the pharmacist make to challenge provisions (1) & (2) of the rule? What legal standards would apply? What are the arguments the pharmacist and Oklahoma agencies would make to persuade a court to agree with their view that an element of those standards has or hasn't been satisfied? Which of these argument(s) would the U.S. Supreme Court be most likely to accept as correct (if the case were heard by the Court) for the elements of the standard, and who will in the case and why? Be sure to explain your conclusion. Part 2 B. (30 points) How can the pharmacist challenge provision (3) of the rule? What legal standards would apply? What are the arguments the pharmacist and Oklahoma agencies would make to persuade a court to agree with their view that an element of those standards has or hasn't been satisfied? Which of these argument(s) would the U.S. Supreme Court be most likely to accept as correct (if the case were heard by the Court) for the elements of the standard, and who will in the case and why? Be sure to explain your conclusion. LONG ANSWER ESSAY OPTION TWO (60 POINTS) FACTS: Ivermectin is an FDA-approved antiparasitic drug to treat several worm mediated diseases in people and livestock such as horses. Known side-effects include nausea, diarrhea and vomiting; overdose may cause confusion, hallucinations, seizures, coma and death. It is not FDA-approved to treat any viral infection. Various media platforms and individuals have, nonetheless, promoted Ivermectin as a treatment option for the virus COVID-19. As a result, there have been several well documented cases of US citizens using Ivermectin in this off-label fashion, and even suing medical care providers to demand that they or a family member with COVID-19 be treated with that drug. This demand has limited Ivermectin's availability for its indicated uses. There is also a concern that because the FDA approved uses of a drug do not prevent a medical practitioner from prescribing a drug for an unapproved use, when they deem it medically appropriate (this is known as off-label prescribing), individuals might go doctor shopping to get access to Ivermectin. The state of Oklahoma's Board of Pharmacy and the Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners (the "Boards") develop a joint rule. The Boards' rule states that: (1) No pharmacist shall dispense Ivermectin to an individual without a prescription for an FDA-approved use; (2) No veterinarian shall dispense Ivermectin to an individual who cannot demonstrate they own livestock; and (3) Pharmacists and veterinarians when dispensing Ivermectin must place the drug in a bag and staple it shut with this leaflet visible on the outside: You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y'all. Stop it. Go to www.FDA.gov to learn more. An Oklahoma pharmacist does not want to comply with this rule. They don't understand why they should be forced to second-guess the medical judgement of a patient's provider and think it's unfair that veterinarians have an easier rule to follow before they disperse Ivermectin. Not to mention that they don't want to spend money on printing and stapling those leaflets! This pharmacist comes to you and asks whether there are any grounds for them to bring a lawsuit to enjoin the regulation, and if they are likely to succeed in their various challenges.