Landmark Decisions

[dropcap class=”kp-dropcap”]O[/dropcap]n October 19, 2015, the medical cannabis industry celebrated a major victory. In U.S. v. Marin Alliance for Medical Marijuana, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California lifted an injunction against one of California’s oldest medical cannabis collectives. The court ruled that the injunction, granted to the Department of Justice (DOJ) back in 2002, was no longer enforceable. This decision was based on the Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment, a congressional spending amendment that precludes the Department of Justice from spending funds on prosecuting collectives in compliance with their state law.

Since the Amendment passed, there has been some uncertainty over the practical effect that the amendment would actually have on cannabis businesses. The intent of the amendment was clearly to prohibit the DOJ from enforcing federal law in states that allowed legitimate medical cannabis business. However, the DOJ took their own interpretation and largely ignored the amendment by continuing to operate in the same way they had since the Cole Memo was released in 2013. Even after the passage of the amendment, the DOJ continued to pursue cases against business who were acting in compliance with their state medical cannabis laws.

The U.S. v. Marin Alliance for Medical Marijuana (MAMM) case dates back to 1998 when Lynette Shaw, Marin Alliance for Medical Marijuana and five other collectives were ordered to stop distributing cannabis per the Controlled Substances Act. The Defendants openly violated the court injunction, which ushered in contempt proceedings, and that case ultimately ended up before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court case held that there was no medical necessity exception to the Controlled Substances Act and focused largely on the expressed congressional judgment that cannabis had no known or accepted medical uses or benefits. On June 10, 2002, the District Court entered a permanent injunction against Shaw, MAMM and the other defendants.

MAMM bravely continued to operate its collective out of the same location until 2011, when the U.S. Attorney’s Office engaged in statewide effort to shutter as many collectives as possible. MAMM was one of hundreds of collectives to receive a cease and desist letter, threatening the businesses’ landlords with asset forfeiture. The U.S. Attorney eventually settled the matter with MAMM’s landlord, who agreed to no longer lease the property to MAMM in exchange for the government not seizing the property.

After the Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment passed, MAMM decided to revisit the case. They argued that based on the amendment, the injunction was no longer enforceable and should be lifted. The Court agreed and modified the injunction to the extent that MAMM and Shaw were operating legally under state law. The District Court held that its job was to “interpret and apply Congress’s policy choices, as articulated in its legislation.” Since the language of the amendment prohibits the DOJ from utilizing funds to enforce laws that interfere with a state’s own medical cannabis laws and programs, the Court held that it could only enforce the Controlled Substances Act in so far as the business was not in compliance with “state laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession or cultivation of medical marijuana.” This is a precedent setting decision by U.S. District Judge, Charles Bryer. It is the first known ruling by a federal judge to protect cannabis collectives under the budget amendment approved by Congress in December of 2014. If this decision is upheld on appeal, it could also halt federal action against other locally licensed cannabis businesses.

It is important to note that this case is not binding in other federal jurisdictions and judges in other jurisdictions may not choose to follow the wisdom of Judge Bryer. Further, Judge Breyer did not say whether or not his reasoning would also apply to criminal prosecutions.

This ruling is truly a landmark decision for the entire medical cannabis industry. As Americans for Safe Access so eloquently stated, “It is apparent that the Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment is not merely symbolic, and has meaningful impact in preventing the federal crackdown on state-legal medical cannabis conduct.” As we bring 2015 to a close, let us all pause to celebrate this monumental victory.