Marijuana

Solicitor General Says SCOTUS Shouldn't Hear Challenge to Marijuana Legalization

The Obama administration says Nebraska and Oklahoma have not described a genuine controversy with Colorado.

|

In a brief filed on Wednesday, the Obama administration urges the Supreme Court not to hear Oklahoma and Nebraska's challenge to marijuana legalization in Colorado. "Entertaining the type of dispute at issue here— essentially that one state's laws make it more likely that third parties will violate federal and state law in another state—would represent a substantial and unwarranted expansion of this court's original jurisdiction," Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr. writes. 

Oklahoma and Nebraska argue that Colorado's licensing and regulation of marijuana businesses violates the Controlled Substances Act and therefore the Supremacy Clause. They brought their complaint directly to the Supreme Court because they think Colorado has created an interstate conflict by allowing the production and distribution of marijuana that may end up in Oklahoma or Nebraska. Federal law gives the Supreme Court "original and exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies between two or more States."

Verrilli rejects Oklahoma and Nebraska's contention that the smuggling of Colorado cannabis creates an interstate controversy. "Where the plaintiff State does not allege that the defendant State has 'confirmed or authorized' the injury-inflicting action, there does not exist a 'controversy' between the States appropriate for initial resolution under this Court's exclusive original jurisdiction," he writes. "Nebraska and Oklahoma essentially contend that Colorado's authorization of licensed intrastate marijuana production and distribution increases the likelihood that third parties will commit criminal offenses in Nebraska and Oklahoma by bringing marijuana purchased from licensed entities in Colorado into those states. But they do not allege that Colorado has directed or authorized any individual to transport marijuana into their territories in violation of their laws. Nor would any such allegation be plausible."

Verrilli's opinion, which the Supreme Court solicited, probably will carry a lot of weight, since Nebraska and Oklahoma's argument is based on Colorado's alleged violation of federal law. If the Court declines to hear the case, Nebraska and Oklahoma can still refile it in U.S. District Court.

"This is a meritless and, quite frankly, ludicrous lawsuit," says Mason Tvert, director of communications at the Marijuana Policy Project. "We hope the court will agree with the solicitor general that it's not something it should be spending its time addressing. These states are literally trying to prevent Colorado from controlling marijuana within its own borders. If officials in Nebraska and Oklahoma want to have a prohibition-fueled marijuana free-for-all in their states, that's their prerogative. But most Coloradans would prefer to see marijuana regulated and taxed similarly to alcohol."

Advertisement

NEXT: Marijuana Ads Are 'Nonmailable,' but That Doesn't Mean You Can't Mail Them

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “Nebraska and Oklahoma essentially contend that Colorado’s authorization of importation and distribution of merchandise manufactured in China increases the likelihood that third parties will commit criminal offenses in Nebraska and Oklahoma by bringing pirated CDs purchased in Colorado into those states.”

  2. Wait, wait. The Obama administration is on the right side of something for once? How did that happen? Did someone screw up?

    1. It’s entirely consistant when you remember that the states bringing the suit voted red.

      1. So fuck team red overrides FYTW?

        1. With Obama, it absolutely does. The only thing he’s been any good at while president is trolling Republicans. It’s something he does at every opportunity

          1. The only thing he’s been any good at while president is trolling Republicans.

            QFT

  3. How about this: the Supreme Court rejects this suit I. Its merits so it *can’t* be reviled in District Court?

    1. *on* its merits

  4. But wasn’t that part of the rationale underlying the decision in Raich? (Aside, obviously, from the unstated rationale that we can’t let those goddamned hippies go around smoking the pots.)

  5. So, if any state has laws that differ from other states that makes it more likely that people will break the law in those other states, thus all state laws must be identical?

    That seems consistent with our Constitution. Yes sir.

    I am guessing that Ok and Ne don’t want their citizens swayed towards legalization by seeing Co success and thus end the looting they are able to engage in. The drug war may not be the most evil thing this country has had to endure but it runs a close second.

    1. If this worked for pot, how long before New York and Massachusetts go after Virginia over guns?
      It wouldn’t be directly applicable based on federal law, but I don’t think that would stop them from trying.

      1. Now that you mention it, I believe they have gone after Virginia in various ways. Didn’t they recently get caught sending their cops undercover to Va gun shops?

        1. Yes, that was one of their stunts. They sent LEOs to make “straw purchases” at VA gun stores. It’s a similar principle to having cops get serviced at massage parlors, but without the high rate of volunteers.

    2. I live in Kansas now (for 2 yrs), and I am honestly surprised we didn’t throw in with OK and NE. I am still mostly Team Red, but this shit is the one thing that consistently makes me think about saying screw the whole thing.

  6. Colorado should file multiple counter suits about unlicensed hair braiders sneaking over the border and shit like that. Just pour over the law differences and file a new suit every day over any and every minor difference they can find.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.