About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

[1] (December 4, 2015)

handle is hein.crs/crsmthabfah0001 and id is 1 raw text is: CRS Reports & Analysis Legal Sidebar District Court Holds Appropriations Language Limits Enforcement of Federal Marijuana Prohibition 12/04/2015 A federal court in California has .rukd that the Department of Justice (DOJ) may not take federal enforcement actions that interfere with California's ability to implement its own state medical marijuana law. The district court's reasoning, if adopted by other federal courts, could potentially erase the threat of federal legal consequences for engaging in state-authorized medical marijuana activities that are nonetheless in violation of federal law. In United States v. Marin Alliance, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California held that it would not enforce an injunction for violation of the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) against a state-licensed medical marijuana dispensary that is in compliance with state law. The decision turned on a provision of a 2015 appropriations act that prohibits the DOJ from using funds to prevent California and 32 other states from implementing their own state laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana. The CSA provides federal law enforcement officials with various tools to enforce its prohibition on the possession, distribution, or cultivation of marijuana. In response to a potential violation, officials may elect to initiate a criminal prosecution, pursue a forfeiture action against property used in furtherance of the unlawful act, or ask a federal court to issue an injunction prohibiting the party from taking future action that violates federal law. In the .aae of Marin Alliance, the DOJ chose to obtain a permanent injunction from the district court that prohibited the group from operating a medical marijuana dispensary. After the enactment of the 2015 appropriations language, however, Marin Alliance returned to the court, asking that the injunction be lifted. In Marin Alliance, the DOJ argued that while the appropriations provision may prohibit federal officials from taking action directly against a state, the language could not be read to prohibit enforcement actions against individuals or private businesses because such actions do not prevent a state from implementing its own laws. The district court strongly rejected this interpretation. Instead, the court determined that in enacting the 2015 appropriations restriction, Congress dictated.. .that it intended to prohibit DOJ from expending any funds in connection with the enforcement of any law that interferes with California's ability to 'implement' its own state medical marijuana law. The court reasoned that by allowing private dispensaries to operate under strict state and local regulation, California had chosen its way of implementing its marijuana law. It defies language and logic, the court held, for the government to argue that it does not 'prevent' California from 'implementing' its medical marijuana laws by shutting down these same heavily regulated medical marijuana dispensaries. Although concluding that the meaning of the appropriations rider was plain on its face, the court further noted that the legislative history, without exception, supported the court's interpretation. The Marin Alliance order raises a number of interesting questions. Although the direct holding of the case applies only to the injunction before the court, it would appear that the language employed could extend to any form of CSA enforcement-whether an injunction, a criminal prosecution, or a forfeiture action-so long as the enforcement action interferes with California's ability to 'implement' its own medical marijuana laws. However, it is unclear if all CSA enforcement actions sufficiently interfere with a state's ability to implement its own laws. Similarly, it is uncertain whether the appropriations provision covers only those actions that would actually result in the closure of a state authorized and regulated facility-such as a dispensary- in which the ongoing operation is central to the overall

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most