PSA: ATTN - If you are bound in raid zones, read this

[heartbrand]

Originally Posted by GoodGuyAmes [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I wonder if they will choose to even hear the case though. 5 of the 9 justices have been appointed by conservative presidents with three of them remaining from the Reagan era. They might decide not to hear it because of their belief in strong state rights with the government trying to meddle in their affairs as little as possible. And yes the federal law prohibits its illegality in the U.S but it has not been actively in-forced for quite some time as anyone who has been in California can attest to. There are more marijuana dispensaries in L.A then there are Starbucks.

The silence of the DOJ on the matter is indeed pretty interesting, given their prior stance I thought for sure they would challenge it under the supremacy clause, an argument that at least in my estimation from the legal blog world would be pretty open and shut.

edit: the DOJ has gone after the large dispensaries though, states rights aside those arguments are usually because of the belief by the conservative justices, a belief I must admit I also hold, that Congress routinely oversteps it's boundaries vis-à-vis the commerce clause. This case is one where a state law directly contradicts a federal law, which would seem straight forward to me. A better argument would be that the Controlled Substances Act is unconstitutional because it violates the commerce clause, however, arguments using the commerce clause have been for the most part even under the conservative majority almost unanimously unsuccessful with the exception of United States v. Lopez