US Supreme Court: Federal law DOES NOT trump state laws on medical marijuana
by Steve Kubby, Director, The American Medical Marijuana Association
Last Monday, the US Supreme Court Monday quietly, but overwhelmingly destroyed the allegations by state law enforcement that, “Federal law trumps state laws on medical marijuana.”
The Supremes declined to review a lower court decision that ordered Garden Grove, California, police to return marijuana seized from a medical marijuana patient. In November 2007, the California Fourth District Court of Appeal had ordered the marijuana returned, finding that “it is not the job of local police to enforce federal drug laws.”
This was the fourth shot the Supremes had at bringing down Prop. 215 and, instead, the high court handed us a silent, but deadly victory. It may be a win by default, but it is most certainly a huge win, perhaps our greatest win to date.
Felix Kha, was pulled over by Garden Grove police in 2005 and cited for marijuana possession despite showing officers his medical marijuana documentation. The case was subsequently dismissed, and the Orange County Superior Court ordered the police to return Kha’s wrongfully seized quarter-ounce of marijuana. Police and the city of Garden Grove refused to return the pot, and appealed the ruling, but lost in the state appeals court last year.
Incredibly, the Appeals Court correctly assessed the federal and state laws on medical marijuana and found NO conflict. The justices found that the federal laws were intended to stop drug ABUSE, while the state laws rightfully addressed MEDICAL use, as provided under the concept of Federalism.
Here is how the three Appeals Court judges put it:
“Congress enacted the CSA to combat recreational drug abuse and curb drug trafficking. Gonzales v. Oregon, supra, 546 U.S. at p. 271; Gonzales v. Raich, supra, 545 U.S. at pp. 10-13.) Its goal was not to regulate the practice of medicine, a task that falls within the traditional powers of the states. (Gonzales v. Oregon, supra, 546 U.S. at p. 269.) Speaking for the majority in Gonzales v. Oregon, Justice Kennedy explained, “The [CSA] and our case law amply support the conclusion that Congress regulates medical practice insofar as it bars doctors from using their prescription-writing powers as a means to engage in illicit drug dealing and trafficking as conventionally understood. Beyond this, however, the statute manifests no intent to regulate the practice of medicine generally.” (Ibid., italics added.)”
The California Supreme Court refused to review the case in March. Now, the US Supreme Court has followed suit. The refusals to hear the appeal means the two high courts have accepted the state appeals court’s reasoning that California’s medical marijuana law is not preempted by federal law and finally lays to waste the bogus claim that state police can ignore state law and arrest patients, or keep their medicine under federal law.
This is a huge win for all of us, because it removes one of the most basic foundations of law enforcements recalcitrance in obeying state marijuana laws and in upholding the rights of medical marijuana patients.
Special thanks to Americans for Safe Access and their brilliant attorney, Joe Elford, for a job well done.US
12 responses so far ↓
1 Steven Druckenmiller // Dec 11, 2008 at 10:41 pm
Why is this posted like, six times in a row?
2 Trent Hill // Dec 11, 2008 at 10:43 pm
*applaudes*
Go Kubby.
3 Trent Hill // Dec 11, 2008 at 10:44 pm
I dont what you’re talking about Druckenmiller
=D
4 richardwinger // Dec 11, 2008 at 10:49 pm
I am very happy the US Supreme Court chose not to hear the California case. But the US Supreme Court, by refusing to hear the case, didn’t decide anything at all. When the US Supreme Court refuses to hear a case, it is remaining silent on the issue.
5 paulie cannoli // Dec 11, 2008 at 10:52 pm
Steve D.,,
Kubby emailed me the same thing – not doing that in IE 7 or FF3 – what are you using?
6 Trent Hill // Dec 11, 2008 at 10:53 pm
Paulie,
No, it was like that originally—I edited out the other 6 versions. That’s my job as “editor”!
7 paulie cannoli // Dec 11, 2008 at 10:55 pm
Thanks…didn’t show up here, I checked it after I posted. Dunno what happened.
8 Trent Hill // Dec 11, 2008 at 10:56 pm
No problem. First time I’v corrected anytihng you’ve written, you do a GREAT job.
9 JimDavidson // Dec 11, 2008 at 11:35 pm
@4 The Supremes can do more good at times by doing nothing.
10 johncjackson // Dec 12, 2008 at 12:06 pm
I think it’s more like the PROPER thing for the Supremes to do is often nothing. However, the practical results are that most non-libertarians and all state agents take the silence as a sign to keep doing what they are doing. Most people and certainly The State don’t see the positives that many of us do. I mean, this isn’t going to keep government thugs from illegal search and seizure, no knock raids on the wrong house, killing family pets,etc. It may keep sympathetic local governments from terrorizing innocent people, but it won’t keep the Feds from doing what they do. Just about the only Supreme Court decision that will practically do anything is something that explicitly says the Feds need to get lost and that there is not legit Interstate Commerce claim or whatever BS justification.
11 Joe Buchman // Dec 12, 2008 at 1:29 pm
There is a message sent by “doing nothing.” One which in effect says “ditto” to the lower court ruling.
Before that there’s more uncertainty about the lower court’s view than after.
12 jway // Dec 13, 2008 at 8:18 am
The message was not so much that Federal law doesn’t trump State law, but more that local law enforcement shouldn’t be enforcing Federal law.
This is still an amazing victory as it means all of the enforcement of the prohibition falls to Federal law enforcement officers. However it doesn’t mean Marijuana is legal in Cali or the other MMJ states, because federally it’s still illegal.
Federal law does still trump State law, but it’s up to the Feds to enforce their own ineffective and destructive laws without receiving any help from the States.
Leave a Comment