United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative

Last updated
United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued March 28, 2001
Decided May 14, 2001
Full case nameUnited States of America v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative
Citations532 U.S. 483 ( more )
121 S. Ct. 1711; 149 L. Ed. 2d 722; 2001 U.S. LEXIS 3518
Case history
PriorUnited States v. Cannabis Cultivators Club, 5 F. Supp. 2d 1086 (N.D. Cal. 1998); reversed sub. nom., United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative, 190 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir. 1999); cert. granted, 531 U.S. 1010(2000).
Holding
There is no medical necessity defense to a charge under the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C.   § 841 et seq.
Court membership
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Associate Justices
John P. Stevens  · Sandra Day O'Connor
Antonin Scalia  · Anthony Kennedy
David Souter  · Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg  · Stephen Breyer
Case opinions
MajorityThomas, joined by Rehnquist, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy
ConcurrenceStevens (in judgment), joined by Souter, Ginsburg
Breyer took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Laws applied
21 U.S.C.   § 841 et seq.

In United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative, 532 U.S. 483 (2001), the United States Supreme Court rejected the common-law medical necessity defense to crimes enacted under the federal Controlled Substances Act of 1970, [1] regardless of their legal status under the laws of states such as California that recognize a medical use for marijuana. [2] Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative was represented by Gerald Uelmen.

Contents

Background

This case would not have arisen without the passage of Proposition 215. California's Compassionate Use Act, allowed a patient or his primary caregiver to cultivate or possess marijuana on the advice of a physician. Bolstered by the enactment, certain groups organized to supply marijuana patients in a manner consistent with the Act. The Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative is one such group.

In January 1998, the U.S. Government sued the OCBC to stop the cultivation and distribution of marijuana in violation of federal law. The Government based its argument on the provisions of the Controlled Substances Act, which forbade the distribution, manufacture, and possession with intent to distribute or manufacture a controlled substance (including marijuana). The lawsuit began in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, and came before District Judge Charles R. Breyer. He concluded that the government would likely prevail on the merits and issued the injunction. [3]

The OCBC believed, however, that ceasing the distribution of marijuana to patients would be harmful to it and so violated Judge Breyer's injunction. The Government brought contempt proceedings against the OCBC. The OCBC argued that the distributions were medically necessary. Judge Breyer found OCBC in contempt, denied OCBC's request to authorize medically necessary distributions of marijuana, and authorized the U.S. Marshals to seize OCBC's premises. Then, the OCBC agreed to stop distributing marijuana. It also appealed Judge Breyer's decision to the Ninth Circuit.

The Ninth Circuit reversed and held that medical necessity was a legally cognizable defense to charges under the Controlled Substances Act. [4] Accordingly, the district court could have fashioned an injunction that was more limited in scope than a total ban on distributing marijuana. The Ninth Circuit ordered the district court to consider the criteria by which OCBC could distribute marijuana under the rubric of medical necessity. The government then asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case, and the Court granted certiorari. [5]

When the case came before the Court, Justice Stephen Breyer recused himself from deciding the case because his brother Charles had been the district judge in the case.

Decision

Justice Thomas wrote for the majority. The OCBC contended that the Controlled Substances Act was susceptible of a medical necessity exception to the ban on distribution and manufacture of marijuana. The Court concluded otherwise.

In 1812, the Court had held in United States v. Hudson and Goodwin that there were no common-law crimes in federal law. [6] The law thus required Congress, rather than the federal courts, to define federal crimes. The Controlled Substances Act did not recognize a medical necessity exception.

Thus, "a medical necessity exception for marijuana is at odds with the terms of the Controlled Substances Act." [7] When it passed the Controlled Substances Act, Congress made a value judgment that marijuana had "no currently accepted medical use." [8] It was not the province of the Court to usurp the value judgment made by the legislature. Thus, it was wrong for the Ninth Circuit to hold that the Controlled Substances Act contained a medical necessity defense. It was also wrong for the Ninth Circuit to order the district court to fashion a more limited injunction that would take into account the fact that marijuana was necessary for certain people to obtain relief from symptoms of chronic illnesses.

Subsequent history

The Court expressly noted that it did not decide another important issue of federal law: whether federal law could override a California law that allowed the purely-local cultivation and distribution of marijuana. It ordered the Ninth Circuit to address that argument in the first instance, and the Ninth Circuit in turn asked the district court to do so.

After further proceedings in the district court, the OCBC appealed to the Ninth Circuit again. The Ninth Circuit stayed its decision pending the Supreme Court's decision in Gonzales v. Raich , which was issued in June 2005. [9] The Ninth Circuit remanded the case to the district court, which rejected the claim, and OCBC appealed again to the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit stayed the proceedings in this case. The stay expired October 16, 2006.

Aftermath

Since the decision in this case and the US Congress's passage of the Rohrabacher–Farr amendment, allowing state medical cannabis programs, the OCBC has gone on to become the largest distributor of medical marijuana ID cards in California. Currently,[ when? ] over 100,000 patients throughout the state are registered members of the OCBC's ID program.

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ed Rosenthal</span> American horticulturist, author, publisher, and cannabis grower

Edward "Ed" Rosenthal is an American horticulturist, author, publisher, and Cannabis grower known for his advocacy for the legalization of marijuana use. He served as a columnist for High Times Magazine during the 1980s and 1990s. He was arrested in 2002 for cultivation of cannabis by federal authorities, who do not recognize the authority of states to regulate the use of medical marijuana. He was convicted in federal court, but the conviction was overturned on appeal. Rosenthal was subsequently convicted again, but was not re-sentenced, since his original sentence had been completed.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">1996 California Proposition 215</span> California law permitting medical marijuana

Proposition 215, or the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, is a California law permitting the use of medical cannabis despite marijuana's lack of the normal Food and Drug Administration testing for safety and efficacy. It was enacted, on November 5, 1996, by means of the initiative process, and passed with 5,382,915 (55.6%) votes in favor and 4,301,960 (44.4%) against.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Removal of cannabis from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act</span> Proposed changes to the legal status of cannabis in U.S. federal law

In the United States, the removal of cannabis from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act is a proposed legal and administrative change in cannabis-related law at the federal level. It has been proposed repeatedly since 1972. The category is the most tightly restricted category reserved for drugs that have "no currently accepted medical use."

The Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative (OCBC) is a California organization whose mission is to "provide seriously ill patients with a safe and reliable source of medical cannabis information and patient support." In order to become a member, a person must provide a note from a treating physician assenting to cannabis therapy for a medical condition listed on the Medicinal Cannabis User Initial Questionnaire. Those conditions range from severe disabilities such as multiple sclerosis and cerebral palsy to relatively minor conditions such as menstrual cramps.

Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243 (2006), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court which ruled that the United States Attorney General cannot enforce the federal Controlled Substances Act against physicians who prescribed drugs, in compliance with Oregon state law, to terminally ill patients seeking to end their lives, commonly referred to as assisted suicide. It was the first major case heard by the Roberts Court under the new Chief Justice of the United States.

Medical necessity is a legal doctrine in the United States related to activities that may be justified as reasonable, necessary, and/or appropriate based on evidence-based clinical standards of care. In contrast, unnecessary health care lacks such justification.

Oaksterdam is a cultural district on the north end of Downtown Oakland, California, where medical cannabis is available for purchase in cafés, clubs, and patient dispensaries. Oaksterdam is located between downtown proper, the Lakeside, and the financial district. It is roughly bordered by 14th Street on the southwest, Harrison Street on the southeast, 19th Street on the northeast, and Telegraph Avenue on the northwest. The name is a portmanteau of "Oakland" and "Amsterdam," due to the Dutch city's cannabis coffee shops and the drug policy of the Netherlands.

California Senate Bill 420 was a bill introduced by John Vasconcellos of the California State Senate, and subsequently passed by the California State Legislature and signed by Governor Gray Davis in 2003 "pursuant to the powers reserved to the State of California and its people under the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution." It clarified the scope and application of California Proposition 215, also known as the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, and established the California medical marijuana program. The bill's title is notable because "420" is a common phrase used in cannabis culture.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Legal history of cannabis in the United States</span>

In the United States, increased restrictions and labeling of cannabis as a poison began in many states from 1906 onward, and outright prohibitions began in the 1920s. By the mid-1930s cannabis was regulated as a drug in every state, including 35 states that adopted the Uniform State Narcotic Drug Act. The first national regulation was the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cannabis in Oregon</span> Use of cannabis in Oregon

Cannabis in Oregon is legal for both medical and recreational use. In recent decades, the U.S. state of Oregon has had a number of legislative, legal, and cultural events surrounding use of cannabis. Oregon was the first state to decriminalize the possession of small amounts of cannabis, and among the first to authorize its use for medical purposes. An attempt to recriminalize possession of small amounts of cannabis was turned down by Oregon voters in 1997.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Charles Breyer</span> American judge (born 1941)

Charles Roberts Breyer is an American attorney and jurist serving as a senior United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Breyer served as chairman of the United States Sentencing Commission from 2018 to 2022.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Medical cannabis in the United States</span> Use of cannabis for medical purposes in the United States

In the United States, the use of cannabis for medical purposes is legal in 38 states, four out of five permanently inhabited U.S. territories, and the District of Columbia, as of March 2023. Ten other states have more restrictive laws limiting THC content, for the purpose of allowing access to products that are rich in cannabidiol (CBD), a non-psychoactive component of cannabis. There is significant variation in medical cannabis laws from state to state, including how it is produced and distributed, how it can be consumed, and what medical conditions it can be used for.

Several authors have put forth arguments concerning the legality of the war on drugs. In his essay The Drug War and the Constitution, libertarian philosopher Paul Hager makes the case that the War on Drugs in the United States is an illegal form of prohibition, which violates the principles of a limited government embodied in the United States Constitution.

Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, 532 U.S. 105 (2001), was a United States Supreme Court case that concerned whether the "section one exemption" of the Federal Arbitration Act applied to an employment contract of an employee at Circuit City Stores. The Court held that the exemption was limited to the specific listing of professions contained in the text. This decision meant that general employment contracts, like the one Adams sued under, would have to be arbitrated in accordance with the federal statute.

Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005), was a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Congress may criminalize the production and use of homegrown cannabis even if state law allows its use for medicinal purposes.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Scott Feil</span>

Scott Feil is an American medical cannabis rights activist, complex aircraft pilot, and businessman. Most known for his involvement in the continuing court case involving Los Angeles Police Department illegal seizure of 209 pounds of medical marijuana, 21 pounds of hashish, 12 pounds of marijuana oil and amounts of U.S. legal tender amounting to $186,416.00 from his Los Angeles based United Medical Caregivers Clinic medical cannabis dispensary, UMCC LLC.

<i>Conant v. Walters</i>

Conant v. Walters, 309 F.3d 629, is a legal case decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which affirmed the right of physicians to recommend medical marijuana. The Court of Appeals affirmed the earlier decision of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, which was filed under the caption Conant v. McCaffrey. Though the case involved chronic patients with untreatable diseases, the decision does not name these conditions as a prerequisite, nor does it limit drugs which may or may not be illegal.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2016 California Proposition 64</span> 2016 California voter initiative that legalized recreational cannabis

The Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA) was a 2016 voter initiative to legalize cannabis in California. The full name is the Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act. The initiative passed with 57% voter approval and became law on November 9, 2016, leading to recreational cannabis sales in California by January 2018.

References

  1. 21 U.S.C.   § 841 et seq.
  2. United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative, 532 U.S. 483 (2001). PD-icon.svg This article incorporates public domain material from this U.S government document.
  3. United States v. Cannabis Cultivators Club, 5F. Supp. 2d1086 ( N.D. Cal. 1998).
  4. United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative, 190F.3d1109 ( 9th Cir. 1999).
  5. 531 U.S. 1010(2000).
  6. United States v. Hudson and Goodwin , 11 U.S. (7 Cranch ) 32 (1812).
  7. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative, 532 U.S. at 491.
  8. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative, 532 U.S. at 493.
  9. Gonzales v. Raich , 545 U.S. 1 (2005).