The U.S. Supreme Court Is Hearing a Huge Marijuana Legalization Case Today

[Tudo]

The Supreme Court of the United States — minus the late Justice Scalia — is set to take up the hot-button issue of marijuana legalization today in a highly watched case. The SCOTUS is hearing a challenge to Colorado legalization from two neighboring states Nebraska and Oklahoma as plaintiffs. The states are arguing that because of legalization, marijuana is unlawfully crossing over their borders. The federal Controlled Substances Act should override state legalization, they argue, under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. But SCOTUS is unlikely to take up Nebraska and Oklahoma v. Colorado, watchers say, partially because the plaintiffs' case is so weak, and partially because one likely supporter of the case, Justice Scalia, is dead.
"It's hard to predict where a given justice is going to come down on anything," according to Tom Angell, in an interview with the International Business Times. Angell founded the cannabis advocacy group Marijuana Majority, and analyzed Scalia's record on cannabis for Marijuana.com. "But my best guess is Nebraska and Oklahoma probably just lost one of their votes for granting the review."
With the nine-member SCOTUS down to eight, the vote for review could be 4-4, and a tie would favor the defendant Colorado. Legal experts say plaintiffs Nebraska and Oklahoma lack standing.

The plaintiffs can't show they could be helped by a positive decision in their favor," Sam Kamin, marijuana law professor at the University of Denver, told IBT.
The federal government itself does not support review, and the solicitor general urged the Supreme Court to deny the lawsuit. If SCOTUS takes up review and ties on the case, it would only be the third time in U.S. history for a so-called 'original jurisdiction deadlock'.

The first time, in 1870, the case remained up in the air for nearly three years. The second time, in 1953, the court ruled one way, only to overrule itself a year later. … In other words, no one knows exactly what will happen if the Supreme Court takes up the Colorado lawsuit and then can't come to a majority opinion on it.
​

Still legal experts doubt SCOTUS wants to potentially shut down medical and recreational legalization in 35 states.
"There is so much very, very high-profile stuff on pause right now, my gut instinct is they are going to say, 'We don't need anything else on our plate,'" Kamin told IBT.
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a42297/supreme-court-weed-legalization/

 

[Boyd Crowder]

was just finta post this.....

 

[Jhhnn]

It's exquisite doublespeak to claim that CO marijuana laws harm OK & NE when they haven't been shown to harm CO at all. If it's truly bad for them it should be bad for us but it's not.

Their wounds are self inflicted.

 

[aridbud]

Wonder with Justice Scalia gone, what will the impact be 4:4 ?

http://johnchiv.blogspot.com/2016/03/status-of-nebraska-and-oklahoma-v.html

"..........Nebraska and Oklahoma v. Colorado raises a number of important procedural and substantive questions, including these: Does Colorado’s marijuana legalization violate federal law or does it merely fail to enforcefederal law? And given the essential role that the federal marijuana prohibition plays in the plaintiff states’ case, should the lawsuit be dismissed on the ground that their real complaint lies with the federal government, not Colorado?

The case also smacks of political irony. The Attorneys General who brought this lawsuit—Jon Bruning of Nebraska and Scott Pruitt of Oklahoma—are both ideologically conservative Republicans. Yet their case should ultimately fail because it contravenes conservative Supreme Court precedents regarding federalism. Their best hope of success would be to drop this suit and re-file an action against the federal government. Yet to have any hope of success in that endeavor, they would need to rely on an important liberal Supreme Court precedent about standing and global warming."

 

[aridbud]

It's exquisite doublespeak to claim that CO marijuana laws harm OK & NE when they haven't been shown to harm CO at all. If it's truly bad for them it should be bad for us but it's not.

Their wounds are self inflicted.

Increased homelessness, a definite impact on the "green rush" in many communities. Some say crime rates have increased...yet tax dollars keep the state flush (currently). Maybe use some of the funds for job creation.

Agree with the law blogger....take your toys home, NE/OK....play in your own sandbox.

 

[iBogart]

Looks like they didn't decide yesterday whether to the hear the case. They may wait to make a decision to hear the case after a new justice is appointed.

 

[meadowman]

funny oklahoma didn't file a suit against texas for the schwagg thats been crossing their border for decades n decades.

 

[Jhhnn]

Increased homelessness, a definite impact on the "green rush" in many communities. Some say crime rates have increased...yet tax dollars keep the state flush (currently). Maybe use some of the funds for job creation.

Agree with the law blogger....take your toys home, NE/OK....play in your own sandbox.

Legalization doesn't increase homelessness. It just attracts the homeless to CO. In that sense it actually relieves other states of that burden. That certainly causes no harm to NE or OK. Crime has continued its downward trajectory if we set aside citations for public consumption of cannabis, as well.

What it really comes down to is that the SCOTUS cannot compel an unwilling Executive branch to enforce federal law. Ruling in favor of the plaintiffs invites CO & the Feds to simply ignore the ruling thus provoking a Constitutional crisis of sorts.

It's similar to to the situation where the Feds refused to defend DOMA & oddly enough to Worchester v Georgia in terms of practical effect.

I suspect that the court will either rule against the plaintiffs or temporize by denying original jurisdiction thus forcing the plaintiffs to re-file in district court & face a long process to return to the SCOTUS if at all. If an appellate court rules in favor of CO at some point in the future the SCOTUS can simply let the ruling stand. If not, more States will have joined us thus confronting the court with a fait accompli much as we now have wrt MMJ.

The worst case scenario for the plaintiffs is to win & have CO get twisted over it so that we don't enforce our own laws thus creating an unregulated market where the only enforcement would come from the Feds, a nightmare scenario for federal prosecutors. They'd play Hell finding CO juries that would convict anybody.

The plaintiffs are right about one thing- cannabis prohibition has to be universal to have any hope of success. It is not now nor likely will it ever be again. They're fighting a hopeless rear guard action against further legalization.

 

[igrowone]

good news on this, SCOTUS will not hear the case
told Nebraska and Oklahoma to go pound sand
the link: http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...referee-state-disputes-over-marijuana-n542551

 

[jump /injack]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/21/supreme-court-declines-halt-colo-pot-friendly-law/

Supreme Court declines to halt Colorado’s marijuana-friendly law

The Supreme Court refused Monday to hear a challenge lodged by two neighboring states who objected to Colorado’s new lax marijuana laws.

Nebraska and Oklahoma had asked the justices to hear the case, saying that Colorado’s policy violates federal law and the costs end up spilling over to nearby states, including themselves. They said under the Constitution, a dispute between states is supposed to be heard by the Supreme Court itself.

But the justices declined, in an order issued Monday.

Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., dissented from the decision, saying the Constitution doesn’t give the court an option — it is required to hear cases brought by one state against another.

“The plaintiff states have alleged significant harms to their sovereign interests caused by another state,” Justice Thomas wrote. “Whatever the merit of the plaintiff states’ claims, we should let this complaint proceed further rather than denying leave without so much as a word of explanation.”

Nebraska and Oklahoma had said increased demand in Colorado meant more marijuana trafficking through their own states.

Tom Angell, chairman of Marijuana Majority, said the justices’ decision was good news for legalization supporters.

“The justices correctly decided that this lawsuit is without merit and that states should be able to move forward with implementing voter-approved legalization laws even if their neighbors don’t like it,” Mr. Angell said.

He said if neighboring states are finding problems with Colorado’s policy, the easiest solution is to follow Colorado’s lead and legalize marijuana themselves.

“That will allow their criminal justice systems to focus on real crime, and it will generate revenue that can be used to pay for health care, education and public safety programs,” he said.

Now is the time to reschedule cannabis to a lesser category, it is not a dangerous drug like heroin or cocaine, it is a benign herb that has help millions and continues to do so even thought the politicians of this country go against the wishes of its citizens. The people in Congress has to stop taking money from unions that work the prisons systems or be voted out of office. You can still get 10 years for one ounce of cannabis in Texas while you can't even be tried for IRS violations and pleading the 5th like Democrat Lois Lerner did; laws are just for the little guy anymore, don't take this crap anymore.

 

[Meraxes]

Dosen't Oklahoma and Nebraska have anything better to do? The things their govs do with their time...

 

[iBogart]

Denied!

Suck it Okie's! On the bong that is.

 

[Jhhnn]

Thomas sums it up in his dissent-

If this Court does not exercise jurisdiction over a controversy between two States, then the complaining State has no judicial forum in which to seek relief.

"Plaintiffs stand right there, please. Thank you." *click* (trap door opens under their feet) "Bye."

They'd hoped to dissuade other states from legalizing & the feds from going along with it by denying states the right to regulate cannabis. No such luck.

 

[Carnack]

More excuses for fed intervention.

 

[MJPassion]

Thomas sums it up in his dissent-





"Plaintiffs stand right there, please. Thank you." *click* (trap door opens under their feet) "Bye."

They'd hoped to dissuade other states from legalizing & the feds from going along with it by denying states the right to regulate cannabis. No such luck.

Love the analogy.
and
YAY!