NE to challenge CO's legalization of marijuana in US Supreme Court

[ryoder 1,380]

WTF???

http://www.ketv.com/politics/nebraska-to-challenge-colorados-legalization-of-marijuana-in-us-supreme-court/30299948

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[AndyBoyd 0]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/18/lawsuit-colorado-marijuana_n_6350162.html

This article explains the lawsuit pretty well. Here is the key to it:

"Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning, along with Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, argue that under the U.S. Constitution's Supremacy Clause, Colorado's legalization of recreational marijuana is unconstitutional because marijuana remains illegal under federal law. The clause states that in general, federal law takes precedence over state law.

"The illegal products being distributed in Colorado are being trafficked across state lines thereby injuring neighboring states like Oklahoma and Nebraska," Pruitt said in a statement."

At first, I was a little unclear as to why this would go directly to the US Supreme Court instead of going to a federal trial court first. I looked at the lawsuit, which states that they filed suit under a federal law that provides:

"The Supreme Court shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies between two or more States."

So, Nebraska and Oklahoma are arguing that Colorado's legalization of marijuana is harming them by allowing increased amounts of marijuana sold in Colorado to enter Nebraska and Oklahoma. Under federal law, they bypassed the normal requirement of filing suit in a trial court and went right to the Supreme Court.

I have no idea whether the lawsuit will succeed. Hope this at least helps you understand what's going on.

[ryoder 1,380]

Interesting.
I never knew a case could go straight to the SC.
Thanks!

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[AndyBoyd 0]

Well, I'm a lawyer and it took me a while to figure it out. I had a vague memory from law school that it was possible to go straight to the US SC, but I had to look at the lawsuit and then use the almighty Google to find out exactly how it was possible.

[419gotaminute 0]

I noticed the article gave no specifics on the cost increases law enforcement has realized. Oklahoma shares a tiny bit of border with Colorado and that border is in the panhandle. There is relatively no population to speak of out there so I question how much of an impact Colorado weed has on Oklahoma.
The sooner state has always been a conduit for trafficking due to the number of highways that converge in Oklahoma City. One would think the attorney general would have a hard time proving the drugs are coming specifically from Colorado...
As a side note there is a line in next years budget that prohibits federal money being spent on fighting laws that individual states have deemed legal. Does this preclude the Feds from becoming involved? Regardless, Nebraska and Oklahoma are probably making as much money in fines as they are spending on enforcement.
edited for format

[AndyBoyd 0]

Quote

Oklahoma shares a tiny bit of border with Colorado and that border is in the panhandle. There is relatively no population to speak of out there so I question how much of an impact Colorado weed has on Oklahoma.

This is exactly why it will be so hard for this lawsuit to succeed, IMHO. How do you prove the harm?

[turtlespeed 212]

AndyBoyd

Well, I'm a lawyer .

Pssswqaahhhh

what ever!

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[ryoder 1,380]

A law professor's opinion: http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/marijuana_law/2014/12/state-versus-state-on-marjiuana-reforms.html

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[AndyBoyd 0]

I agree with the professor's comments. Thanks.

[Andy9o8 0]

AndyBoyd

I agree with the professor's comments. Thanks.

I do, too. As the prof says, the Feds cannot use preemption to force a state to pass or repeal any kind of state legislation. Nor are states required to assist in the policing or prosecution of federal laws.

If the feds want to enforce federal marijuana laws in Colorado, the feds can send US Marshalls in to do the policing, and then the district US Attorney's office will prosecute. (Or note a more extreme historical example, in the early 1960s when the President federalized certain states' National Guards to enforce federal civil rights.) So if anything, OK's & NE's action should (or at least could) be a "mandamus" lawsuit to compel the federal government to enforce federal law. But Colorado is not the proper party-defendant under these facts.

(What Colorado could not lawfully do is actively interfere with the Fed govt's enforcement of federal mj laws in Colorado. But I don't think anything Colorado is actually doing fits that category.)

As an aside, the feds do have the ability to intimidate states into following federal policy. That already happens. For example, when the feds threaten to cut off federal highways funds if the state doesn't follow federal guidelines re: speed limits, etc. So I suppose if the feds really wanted to, they could try that approach against states re: mj laws.

[cgriff 0]

Andy9o8

If the feds want to enforce federal marijuana laws in Colorado, the feds can send US Marshalls in to do the policing, and then the district US Attorney's office will prosecute.

Not by any reasonable interpretation. I know reason has nothing to do with this discussion, but can anyone honestly defend the pretense that something grown and sold strictly within one state is interstate commerce? It really doesn't take a SC Justice or even a lawyer to read the Constitution and see that this is not legitimately a Federal issue.

[Andy9o8 0]

cgriff

***If the feds want to enforce federal marijuana laws in Colorado, the feds can send US Marshalls in to do the policing, and then the district US Attorney's office will prosecute.

Not by any reasonable interpretation. I know reason has nothing to do with this discussion, but can anyone honestly defend the pretense that something grown and sold strictly within one state is interstate commerce? It really doesn't take a SC Justice or even a lawyer to read the Constitution and see that this is not legitimately a Federal issue.

I was speaking hypothetically to illustrate the point.

[ryoder 1,380]

[facepalm]

http://www.kmbc.com/news/kansas-mulls-joining-marijuana-lawsuit-against-colorado/30343848

I suppose it is asking too much for them to just join the 21st century.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[Andy9o8 0]

ryoder

[facepalm]

http://www.kmbc.com/news/kansas-mulls-joining-marijuana-lawsuit-against-colorado/30343848

I suppose it is asking too much for them to just join the 21st century.

Not very likely.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

cgriff

***If the feds want to enforce federal marijuana laws in Colorado, the feds can send US Marshalls in to do the policing, and then the district US Attorney's office will prosecute.

Not by any reasonable interpretation. I know reason has nothing to do with this discussion, but can anyone honestly defend the pretense that something grown and sold strictly within one state is interstate commerce? It really doesn't take a SC Justice or even a lawyer to read the Constitution and see that this is not legitimately a Federal issue.

I know you are in LE, and should be familiar with SC cases.
Are you aware of Wickard v Filburn?

That's the decision that opened the floodgates for federal intervention in just about anything because of "interstate commerce."

Truly a "camel's nose" situation that the federal government took full advantage of. It's only been recently that there has been effective pushback.

The Gun Free School Zone Act was the first time the feds were told "That's not "Interstate Commerce."

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[ryoder 1,380]

wolfriverjoe

Are you aware of Wickard v Filburn?

My blood pressure just rose.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[champu 1]

wolfriverjoe

The Gun Free School Zone Act was the first time the feds were told "That's not "Interstate Commerce."

Yes, but then United States v. Dorsey (albeit not a SCOTUS decision) determined that if you just add the words "interstate commerce" to the law then you're good.

If you're doing absolutely anything whatsoever then, by way of opportunity costs, you are most certainly not doing at least one thing that affects interstate commerce.*

*NB: I don't support this, I just think it follows from the Supreme Court decisions on the matter. I think said decisions should be dismantled.

[cgriff 0]

Andy9o8

I was speaking hypothetically to illustrate the point.

And just to be clear, that (and this) wasn't aimed at you so much as the entire country...

Yes, I am aware of many cases that our system uses as a basis for the many rampant abuses of power. I just like periodically pointing out to people that they are irrelevant. If this actually were a free country, our government would abide by the document that created it, and not pretend that a long series of bad court decisions actually changed the rules. If the Federal government really needs a power that it does not LEGITIMATELY have, amazingly enough, there's a way to change the rules actually written into the rules themselves.

[AndyBoyd 0]

My view is that Wickard was wrongly decided. On that Court's reasoning, virtually anything falls under the heading of "interstate commerce." I still remember discussing that case in law school.

[rehmwa 2]

Nebraska and Okie are a bit silly here. They could monitor the border strongly and confiscate the dope, arrest the offenders. Then sell the dope back to CO and fine offenders strongly and turn the situation into quite a revenue generation project.

that way the independent states get what they want, without trying to tell the other independent state how to run their business.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

AndyBoyd

My view is that Wickard was wrongly decided. On that Court's reasoning, virtually anything falls under the heading of "interstate commerce." I still remember discussing that case in law school.

No disagreement on that here.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[AndyBoyd 0]

***Nebraska and Okie are a bit silly here.

Agreed. The whole suit is a bit silly. But it'll be kind of fun to watch this play out.

[ryoder 1,380]

SCOTUS refused to hear the case: http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/03/21/471295765/supreme-court-denies-marijuana-suit-from-colorado-s-neighboring-states

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.