Case Brief: United States v. McIntosh, 833 F.3d 1163 (9th Cir. 2016)
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Facts
Several defendants, including McIntosh, were prosecuted for violating federal drug laws by growing and distributing marijuana. They argued that their activities were legal under state medical marijuana laws. During their prosecution, Congress passed the Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment, which prohibited the Department of Justice (DOJ) from using funds to interfere with the implementation of state medical marijuana laws.
Issue
Does the Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment prohibit the DOJ from prosecuting individuals who comply with state medical marijuana laws?
Holding
Yes. The court held that the Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment prohibits the DOJ from spending funds to prosecute individuals if they are in compliance with state medical marijuana laws.
Reasoning
The court interpreted the Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment as preventing the DOJ from interfering with the implementation of state medical marijuana laws. This includes the prosecution of individuals who strictly comply with state laws. The court emphasized that if the DOJ wishes to prosecute such individuals, it must prove that they are not in compliance with state laws.
Rule of Law
The Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment bars the DOJ from using funds to prosecute individuals who are in strict compliance with state medical marijuana laws.
Important Points
- The impact of the Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment on federal prosecution of state-compliant medical marijuana activities.
- The necessity for the DOJ to prove non-compliance with state laws if it intends to prosecute.
Cited Cases
- United States v. Nixon, 839 F.3d 885 (9th Cir. 2016): Addressed similar issues of federal funding restrictions impacting prosecution.
- Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005): Reaffirmed federal authority over drug regulation but was distinguished due to the new legislative context.
- United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative, 532 U.S. 483 (2001): Highlighted the federal government's stance on marijuana distribution despite state laws.
Similar Cases
- United States v. Nixon, 839 F.3d 885 (9th Cir. 2016): Similar interpretation of the Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment.
- United States v. Marin Alliance for Medical Marijuana, 139 F. Supp. 3d 1039 (N.D. Cal. 2015): Examined the amendment's impact on ongoing federal cases against state-compliant marijuana dispensaries.
- United States v. Kynaston, 2016 WL 2941195 (E.D. Wash. 2016): Discussed the limitations imposed by the Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment on federal prosecutions.
No comments:
Post a Comment