The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Can a Criminal Enterprise Commit an Unfair Labor Practice?
Does the National Labor Relations Board have jurisdiction over a medical marijuana dispensary's treatment of its employees?
Today the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit decided a case concerning the allegation of unfair labor practices at Curaleaf Arizona, a medical marijuana dispensary. In Absolute Healthcare v. NLRB, the court granted Curaleaf's petition challenging some NLRB findings that the company had committed unfair labor practices under the National Labor Relations Act.
The fact that Curaleaf is a medical marijuana dispensary makes this an interesting case. While Curaleaf's activities are legal under Arizona law, they are criminal under federal law, so Curaleaf is engaged in a criminal enterprise. This makes it interesting, to say the least, for a federal agency (the NLRB) to police Curaleaf's treatment of its employees. (For an exploration of other curiosities caused by the state-level legalization of the distribution and sale of marijuana, see my book, Marijuana Federalism: Uncle Sam and Mary Jane.)
Judge Millett wrote the panel opinion, granting Curaleaf's petition insofar as it challenged the NLRB's findings. (Some of the NLRB's findings were uncontested.) Senior Judge Ginsburg and Judge Walker joined the opinion. Judge Walker also wrote a separate opinion raising questions about whether the NLRA reaches allegedly unfair labor practices by employers engaged in businesses that remain illegal under federal law.
Congress empowered the National Labor Relations Board to protect the labor rights of certain employees of certain employers that affect interstate commerce. It is an undeniably broad grant of jurisdiction. But it may not be quite as broad as the NLRB assumes.
Consider the facts of this case. The NLRB ordered a criminal enterprise called Curaleaf Gilbert to pay a drug dealer to sell illegal drugs. That is a curious order from the branch of government tasked with faithfully executing federal law.
I can imagine three arguments in favor of the NLRB's jurisdiction over marijuana dispensaries like Curaleaf, but each has flaws.
First, many people believe marijuana should be legal. There are thoughtful people on both sides of that policy debate, and momentum may well be toward legalization. But for now, marijuana remains illegal at the federal level, notwithstanding the Department of Justice's nonenforcement.
Second, Arizona law allows Curaleaf to sell marijuana. But federal criminal prohibitions preempt conflicting state law. And those prohibitions cannot be displaced by an agency advisory memo.
Third, the NLRB usually retains jurisdiction even after an employer breaks a law. Indeed, Congress tasked the NLRB with holding employers accountable when they violate federal labor law. But that's when the enterprise is otherwise legitimate — not necessarily when its sole aim is to sell an illegal product or provide an illegal service.
That distinction may be more significant than the NLRB appreciates. After all, rings of bookies and counterfeiters affect interstate commerce, but the NLRB does not seem eager to adjudicate their labor disputes. Ditto for street gangs.
Why does that change when a corner boy calls himself a "budtender" and his crew incorporates under state law?
To me, at least, the answer is hazy.
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. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
There have been cases in recent years of Fair Labor Standards Act lawsuits against dispensaries, with the dispensaries trying to employ the defense that since their business is illegal they can't be compelled to pay mw/ot to employees. It's been a couple of years since I checked, but IIRC the courts were not receptive to this argument.
Check deeper -- I believe you will find two things. First, most states have "me too" overtime and minimum wage laws (those with a higher than Federal minimum inherently have to) and state courts are inherently legitimate in enforcing these state laws, which happen to mirror the Federal laws.
Second, I believe all of these legal pot laws have related licensing laws and regulatory boards which probably somehow include a requirement that the Federal ot/mw mandates be complied with. Those requirements, I believe, would be STATE requirements (merely referencing Federal text) which the STATE courts could enforce.
The case worth watching is out of Holyoke, MA involving a pot plant employee who died (essentially) on the job from (allegedly) inhaled pot dust and/or mold.
See: https://www.yahoo.com/news/cannabis-worker-died-job-asthma-180451214.html
OSHA is involved.. https://www.nbcboston.com/news/local/family-of-mass-cannabis-worker-who-died-at-job-from-asthma-attack-files-lawsuit/3198245/
I believe that the next time I need legal analysis from Dr. Ed will be about the same time that Patrick Mahomes calls him up and asks him for tips on how to throw a football accurately.
Someone sounds mad some elders of his church got smacked down by the courts.
If the employees were the plaintiffs I would point towards the "unclean hands" doctrine. But the NLRB is the other party and it is unclear to me if equitable considerations are relevant.
According to Wikipedia the Rohrabacher–Farr Amendment suspending criminal prosecution related to state-legal medical marijuana is in effect through the rest of this fiscal year.
What does that have to do with anything?
"But the NLRB is the other party" Isn't that usually the case in federal labor law? Employees go to government agency, which decides whether there is a likely violation of the law, and if so, prosecutes on the employees' behalf? The employees still start and are the driving force behind the action.
In some employment law situations either the employee or the agency can sue. I don't know what the split is in labor law.
Prior to May 30th, A Day Which Shall Live In Infamy, I would have agreed with the judge on the rule of law. But not now because law is whatever a hack judge says it is, facts be damned.
We are all officially in a banana republic now -- and everything else is moot.
Meh. The trial judge applied the law as written, and the jury determined the facts of the case.
If the law is bonkers, and I'm open to this argument, it's the role of the appeals court to judge the law.
What is one specific thing that you think the judge did wrong?
Allowing the prosecution to assert Trump committed campaign finance laws while forbidding Trump from defending against the allegations?
The easy answer (to me, at least) is that if an enterprise is illegal at the federal level but legal at the state leve, regardless of federal preemption arguments, it cannot be "engaged in interstate commerce". That puts it outside not just the NRLB's jurisdiction but the entirety of congressional reach.
Sadly, the "interstate commerce" restriction has been so watered down and corrupted by SCOTUS as to be meaningless. But hope springs eternal - maybe someday there will be a case that lets SCOTUS resuscitate the interstate part of commerce clause.
If it’s not engaged in interstate commerce, how does the federal government have the power to prohibit what it’s doing in the first place?
I think the better argument is that by ordering drug kingpins to pay more money to drug dealers, the NLRB is directly facilitating drug crime.
Could the NLRB rule that Murder, Inc. wasn’t paying its contract killers enough and order it to pay them more money? Could it rule that too small an amount for a hit wasn’t fair? What do we mean by fair here? Is it in the federal interest or consistent with federal law for a federal agency to encourage more prospective employees to enter the contract murder business by requiring that they be paid higher wages?
I don’t see how that follows. Whether or not something is legal doesn’t seem like it has any connection to whether or not it’s commerce.
You're right that it has no connection to whether or not it’s commerce but it has a great deal (potentially) to whether or not it’s interstate. Again, the “interstate” part of the commerce clause is what needs resuscitation.
How? Whether the commerce is interstate or not (and however you define interstate) seems like a purely factual question. How does the legality affect that in any way?
But if something isn’t interstate commerce, the federal government has no power to criminalize it, or otherwise regulate it, in the first place. All these laws look to the Interstate Commerce Clause for their authority. Gonzales v. Raich held that marijuana grown at home for personal use is interstate commerce and hence the federal government has power to criminalize it.
Can we overturn Raich?
That gets you into a catch-22.
If the federal government criminalizes a certain action that is interstate commerce, then it is no longer interstate commerce. Since it's no longer interstate commerce, the federal government has no power to criminalize it.
Which means now it's legal, and it can be interstate commerce again.
It’s not a catch-22. It’s simply nonsense, a bogus claim.
The question of whether something is interstate commerce or not - whether it can or cannot be regulated by Congress - is a matter for federal courts to decide by themselves, completely independently of whatever regulations Congress decides to impose or not impose.
If you want to throw a real curveball out there, didn't the Federal Government declare a 100% tax on the proceeds from the sale of illegal drugs? I believe that it was in the late 80's.
I don't think there is a 100% tax. Ordinary business expenses are not deductible when selling drugs so you get taxed on gross income instead of net income.
Some states imposed large taxes on illegal drugs in the 1980s. The laws didn't work out. Nobody bought the tax stamps except a few collectors. Drug dealing was already such a serious crime that the ability to charge tax evasion too didn't matter. A sentence of 10 years with an order to pay $50,000 back taxes is not much different from a sentence of 9 years simply for the drug crime.
I'm thinking that the 100% tax was to make it easier to seize the cash and assets of drug dealers. I agree that it was never used, but, is the law still on the books? If it is, how long until somebody gets the idea to use it?
Well, that's the opposite of the Supreme Court's view in Raich.
Yes, that’s exactly the point of my second paragraph. Raich and it’s predecessor Wickard were wrongly decided.
But again, if something isn’t interstate commerce, the federal government can’t criminalize it, so it CAN’T be illegal at the federal level. If Raich and Wickard were wrongly decided, then the federal government couldn’t regulate purely intrastate marijuana business. This means it couldn’t make purely intrastate possession, sale, or distribution of marijuana a crime in the first place. Nor could it regulate employment or wages for these businesses. There’d be no basis for the federal government to stick its nose in at all.
Exactly right. There is no legitimate basis for the federal government to stick its nose in at all.
This seems like a complete nonsequitur. It’s one thing to say that Raich is wrong and that operating a store that sells marijuana may not be engaging in interstate commerce. But I don’t see how it makes any sense to say that operating a marijuana store isn’t engaging in interstate commerce if and only if it’s illegal.
I see now. I had an unstated assumption that the description above that the business was legal under state law was entirely true - and for that to be true, it has to be an entirely intra-state operation.
Raich was intrastate, and wasn't commerce: it was grown to be given away.
That's Wickard for you.
Fwiw, Thomas dissented. So it will come back.
We collect taxes on illegal enterprises.
"Some of the NLRB's findings were uncontested."
Did Curaleaf raise the question of jurisdiction?
Wait a second. THAT Judge Ginsburg?
Apparently so. From brief fame to senior judge obscurity. Should he have recused?
No. But it is funny.
The Ginsburg affair prompted an historic event: a funny joke by Mark Russell.
"Don't smoke that joint, young man! Don't you want to be a Supreme Court justice one day?"
"No, I want to be President."
"After all, rings of bookies and counterfeiters affect interstate commerce, but the NLRB does not seem eager to adjudicate their labor disputes. Ditto for street gangs."
Is this the new play for the next Untouchables? Instead of tax evasion, it's "wage theft"?
I learned a new word. "Budtender" is stoner language for "sommelier".
In this case, it was used by a Federalist Society wingnut and social injustice warrior from the sticks.
Congress (House and Senate), the White House, and the Federal Courts have no problem running afoul of federal labor laws...
So no!
That marijuana is illegal at the federal level but legal in some states has created quite a few conundrums (conundra?) in the law.
Take IP law. The Patent and Trademark office, as its name implies, grants patents and trademark registrations. The Patent part will issue patents that relate to marijuana technology -- there are even plant patents issued on varieties of marijuana. The Trademark part of the PTO, OTOH, will not issue a trademark registration to businesses who manufacture or deliver marijuana. The legal theory for this is that patents are only negative rights -- you have the right to prevent others from using the patented technology. Trademarks grant the exclusive right to use the mark in connection with the goods or services listed. If they are illegal, there is no legal use and hence no trademark right.
So, sorry drug dealers, you can get a patent but not a trademark.
(True story. After my first year of law school, I worked as a student intern for the US attorney in the SDNY. One day we interviewed a gang member who was describing how different gangs had different "brands" of drugs. For crack, they used different colored tops -- purple tops, gold tops, red tops. For heroin, they stamped the cake of heroin with an animal -- a tiger, a dragon etc. If one gang used another's mark, they would send out a hit squad. I jokingly told the AUSA later, "Well that's an efficient form of trademark enforcement.")
"To me, at least, the answer is hazy."
Or the answer is in, umm, the weeds.
Yet another problem to be solved as the liberal-libertarian mainstream continues to diminish the relevance of authoritarian, stale-thinking Republican and conservative scolds in modern American life.
Yet another afternoon for an old man to shout at clouds.
Don't disrespect our president!
I render respect to the office.
Kirkland's your president?
I believe marijuana should and will be legalized. I believe this will be effected by the liberal-libertarian mainstream over the objections of authoritarian conservative prudes. With which part of that do you quarrel, clinger?
Dana Rohrabacher is part of the liberal mainstream?
Number of words: 27.
Number of coherent thoughts: 0.
[comment relocated]
TRACY: ...I was a bucket drummer in the subway
LIZ: That's not a real job
TRACY: Oh yeah? How come I got sued for sexual harassment at it?
Thread winner.
It's a no brainer.
The answer is yes. The NLRB has authority over criminal enterprises just as the IRS does.
However, since the federal government allows the illegal activity, from its perspective, by not enforcing those laws pertaining to illegal activity, they are violating their own laws and must be charged and go to trial or be impeached.
And, since, with especially this administration, all flows to the executive department, old Joe Biden is to be impeached for running a criminal enterprise. If, old Joe Biden, who openly runs a criminal enterprise, is not held accountable to federal law and constitutional law, via abstentious disregard of duty by Congress, in their power to impeach, and including the numerous other breaches of federal laws not being enforced, such as allowing an invasion of the country, allowing persons to be held without trial for extended periods of time, and etc., the People must dissolve their current constitution and make new.
See, marijuana is dangerous as it "has the flame, heroin is the fuse, LSD is the bomb" Dragnet 1960s
Enacting a law but not enforcing it may seem irrational to intellectuals. But it is a standard form of compromise that has been used many times in our Nation’s history. Proponents of the law get the satisfaction of knowing that society officially disapproves of and sanctions the activity involved. Opponents get to go on with their business. The approach has been used many times. For example, for most of the 20th century, a large majority of states had fornication and similar laws on their books but rarely or never enforced them. The Obama Administration declined to enforce immigration laws against “dreamers.” Currently, the Biden Administration refuses to enforce the Comstock Act’s prohibition against interstate commerce in abortifacients. There are many other examples.
It’s well-established in our history. Making a law but then not enforcing it isn’t criminal. It’s a normal part of how our system of government works on issues when there is sharp disagreement within society. Compromises often seem irrational. Yet they are sometimes essential to the smooth working of government and to keeping the peace in a diverse and sharply disagreeing society.
Sure, why not? If you can fail to pay your taxes on your il-gotten gains and marijuana.
Suppose the NLRB adjudicates a dispute between Murder, Inc. and one of its hit men over payment for a hit. I think it could be argued that by ruling that the hit man was entitled to more compensation for the hit then he got, the NLRB is tending to encourage murder for hire by making participating in it more lucrative, thus undermining the policy behind federal laws against contract killing.
A principle of contract law says that certain contracts are so wrong that the courts will not touch them. Murder for hire would count. If the hitman got the money the hitman keeps the money. If the hitman didn't get paid, too bad for him. The courts will neither enforce the contract nor restore the status quo ante. The contract is "void as against public policy" which is more void than the average void contract.
If your delivery schedule requires commercial drivers to exceed speed limits, in violation of federal DOT regulations, that employment contract wouldn't be void. It's not illegal enough. Moving goods is a legitimate purpose.
One could argue that employment in a marijuana business is against public policy as a matter of federal law and the federal government should not intervene.
Notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s 5-4 assertion that the feds can ban local use of marijuana under the Commerce power, I am unconvinced.
A more likely defense is that the MJ laws are just Congress enforcing the UN drug treaty, but of course Biden could put a stop to *that* by pulling out of the treaty.
If Biden wants a treaty commitment to ban *other* drugs (besides MJ), he can ask the Senate to re-ratify the drug treaty, but this time with a reservation to keep dope legal.
Pulling out of the treaty would reinstate the Constitutional commerce regime, and the Supreme Court could change its 5-4 commerce-clause decision into 5-4 the other way, making federalism great again.
Any proposed law should be judged by the incentives it creates.
There is already law and precedent for enforcing wage and hour laws on businesses that employ illegal aliens, and it makes sense. Granted, if you allow such suits, you reward people for crossing the border illegally and working here. But if you don't allow such suits you reward slimy businesses that put illegal aliens to work for less than the minimum wage and in poor conditions, and taking away that latter reward is the more important because it will reduce illegal migration more.
Now apply the same logic to state-legal marijuana dispensaries. The first question that arises is which violation of law is more important to stop -- the sale of marijuana or unfair employment conditions. In my estimation stopping unfair employment conditions is the more important, mostly because it's much more possible. If a dispensary, or even all dispensaries, are shut down, their customers will go back to their existing not-even-state-legal dealers; indeed many still use them, both for price and privacy concerns. Most of the states that have semi-legal marijuana tax it so heavily that most users have never shopped at a dispensary.
So I would allow those labor plaintiffs to be heard by courts.