Federalism and state Marijuana legislation

Notre Dame Law Review

Volumn 91, Issue 3, 2016, Pages 1253-1285

  Nickles, Dean M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84964781155     PISSN: 07453515     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (112)

1. 21 U. S. C. § 801 (2012).
2. 49 U. S. C. (2012)).
3. 21 U. S. C. §§ 801 (1) - (2).
4. TODD GARVEY & BRIAN T. YEH, CONG. RESEARCH SERV., R43034, STATE LEGALIZATION OF RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA: SELECTED LEGAL ISSUES 7 (2014)
5. (citing 21 U. S. C. § 811 (a)).
6. 21 U. S. C. § 812 (c) (10).
7. See CAL. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE § 11362.5 (West 2014).
8. See State Medical Marijuana Laws, NAT'L CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES (Oct.16, 2014), http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/state-medical-marijuana-laws.aspx#2.
9. See WASH. REV. CODE ANN. § 69.50.401 (3) (West 2015).
10. See COLO. CONST. art. XVIII, § 16.
11. See ALASKA STAT. ANN. § 17.38.010 (West 2015).
12. See H. B. 3400, 78th Leg. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Or. 2015).
13. See D. C. CODE ANN. § 48-904.01 (West 2015).
14. 545 U. S. 1 (2005).
15. See Brief for the States of Alabama et al. as Amici Curiae in Supporting Respondents, Raich, 545 U. S. 1 (2005) (No. 03-1454)
16. 2004 WL 2336486, at 10-11 [hereinafter Amicus Brief of Alabama et al.]
17. Brief of the States of California et al. as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondents, Raich, 545 U. S. 1 (2005) (No. 03-1454)
18. 2004 WL 2336549, at 6
19. (citing Medtronic, Inc. V. Lohr, 518 U. S. 470, 475 (1996))).
20. See Memorandum from James M. Cole, Deputy Att'y Gen., to All United States Attorneys (Aug. 29, 2013), http://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/3052013829132756 857467.pdf.
21. The other two memoranda were issued in October 2009, Memorandum from Deputy Att'y Gen. David W. Ogden, to Selected United States Attorneys, (Oct. 19, 2009), http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/legacy/2009/10/19/medical-marijuana.pdf
22. and June 2011, Memorandum from James M. Cole, Deputy Att'y Gen., to All United States Attorneys (June 29, 2011), http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/oip/legacy/2014/07/23/dag-guidance-2011-for-medical-marijuana-use.pdf.
23. Memorandum from James M. Cole, Deputy Att'y Gen., to All United States Attorneys, at 1 (Aug. 29, 2013), http://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/3052013829132756 857467.pdf.
24. See Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. V. State Energy Res. Conservation & Dev. Comm'n, 461 U. S. 190, 203-04 (1983) (discussing three types of preemption);
25. see also English v. Gen. Elec. Co., 496 U. S. 72, 78-79 (1990) (same).
26. See Pac. Gas. & Elec., 461 U. S. at 203
27. (citing Jones v. Rath Packing Co., 430 U. S. 519, 525 (1977)).
28. (citing Fid. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. De la Cuesta, 458 U. S. 141, 153 (1982)).
29. (quoting Fla. Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. V. Paul, 373 U. S. 132, 142-43 (1963)).
30. (quoting Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U. S. 52, 67 (1941)).
31. 21 U. S. C. § 903 (2012).
32. 546 U. S. 243 (2006).
33. (citing Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U. S. 555, 565-68 (2009))).
34. (citing Caleb Nelson, Preemption, 86 VA. L. REV. 225, 228 (2000))).
35. (citing Emerald Steel Fabricators, Inc. V. Bureau of Labor & Indus., 230 P.3d 518, 528 (Or. 2010)).
36. See Gonzalez v. Raich, 545 U. S. 1, 33 (2005) (holding state statute invalid on Commerce Clause grounds);
37. United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Coop., 532 U. S. 483, 491 (2001) (holding state statute contravened language of Controlled Substances Act).
38. Timothy M. Phelps, Justice Department Says It Can Still Prosecute Medical Marijuana Cases, L. A. TIMES (Apr. 2, 2015), http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nnmedical-marijuana-abusers-20150401-story.html.
39. See Chevron, U. S. A., Inc. V. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837, 843 (1984) ("[I]f the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue, the question for the court is whether the agency's answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute.").
40. 160 CONG. REC. H4878 (daily ed. May 28, 2014) (statement of Rep. Rohrabacher).
41. 545 U. S. 1 (2005).
42. 160 CONG. REC. H4983 (daily ed. May 29, 2014) (statement of Rep. Fleming).
43. See, e.g., Jack Healy, Nebraska and Oklahoma Sue Colorado over Marijuana Law, N. Y. TIMES (Dec. 18, 2014), http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/19/us/politics/nebraska-andoklahoma-sue-colorado-over-marijuana-law.html;
44. Trevor Hughes, Sheriffs Sue Colorado Over Legal Marijuana, USA TODAY (Mar. 5, 2015), http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/03/05/sheriffs-from-three-states-sue-colorado-over-marijuana/24385401/.
45. COLO. CONST. art. XVIII, § 16.
46. See New State Ice Co. V. Liebmann, 285 U. S. 262, 311 (1932) (Brandeis, J., dissenting) ("It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.");
47. see also United States v. Lopez, 514 U. S. 549, 581 (1995) (Kennedy & O'Connor, JJ., concurring) ("[T]he States may perform their role as laboratories for experimentation to devise various solutions where the best solution is far from clear.").
48. U. S. CONST. art. IV.
49. (codified at ARIZ. REV. STAT. ANN. § 36-28.1 (West 2015)).
50. CAL. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE § 11362.5 (West 2014).
51. COLO. REV. STAT. § 18-18-406.3 (2014).
52. JAMES ORLANDO, OFFICE OF LEGIS. RESEARCH, MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION, 2013-R-0442 (Conn. 2014).
53. JAMES ORLANDO, OFFICE OF LEGIS. RESEARCH, MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION FOR NON-MEDICAL PURPOSES, 2014-R-0191 (Conn. 2014).
54. DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 16, §§ 4901A-4926A (2011).
55. NAT'L ACADS. PRESS, MARIJUANA AND MEDICINE: ASSESSING THE SCIENCE BASE, INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE: DIVISION OF NEUROSCIENCE AND BEHAVIORAL HEALTH (Janet E. Joy et al. eds., 1999).
56. DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 16, § 4901A (b)
57. DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 16, § 4901A (e);
58. DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 16, § 4901A (f);
59. HAW. REV. STAT. ANN. §§ 329-121-123 (West 2015).
60. H. B. 3885, 187th Gen. Court, 2012 Reg. Sess. (Mass. 2012).
61. MICH. COMP. LAWS ANN. §§ 333.26421-333.26430 (West 2015).
62. MONT. CODE ANN. §§ 50-46-301-344 (2011).
63. NEV. CONST. art. IV, § 38 (LexisNexis, through the Seventy-Seventh (2013) and the Twenty-Seventh Special (2013) Session).
64. SEC'Y OF STATE DEAN HELLER, NEV. OFFICE OF THE SEC'Y OF STATE, STATE OF NEVADA: BALLOT QUESTIONS 2000, http://www.leg.state.nv. us/Division/Research/VoteNV/Ballot Questions/2000.pdf.
65. Assemb. B. 453, 71st Reg. Sess. (Nev. 2001)
66. Nev. Assemb. Comm. on Judiciary Minutes, 77th Sess. (Nev. Jun. 1, 2013).
67. U. S. CONST. art. VI, cl. 2.
68. Minutes of the Meeting of the Assemb. Comm. on Judiciary, 77th Sess. (Nev. Jun. 2, 2013).
69. Minutes of the S. Comm. on Judiciary 28, 77th Sess. (Nev. Mar. 29, 2013).
70. See Minutes of the Meeting of the Assemb. Comm. on Judiciary, 2013 Leg., 77th Sess. 26-27 (Nev. Apr. 5, 2013).
71. See N. J. STAT. ANN. § 24:6I-1 (West 2015).
72. See Assemb. B. 06357, 237th Leg., Reg. Sess. (N. Y. 2014)
73. (codified at N. Y. PUB. HEALTH LAW §§ 3360-3369-E (McKinney 2015)).
74. See N. Y. STATE ASSEMB., N. Y. SPONS. MEMO., 2013
75. Assemb. B. 6357, 236th Leg., Reg. Sess. (N. Y. 2013)
76. [hereinafter N. Y. SPONSOR MEMO].
77. See DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 16, §§ 4901A-4926A (2011);
78. N. Y. SPONSOR MEMO, supra note 144.
79. N. Y. SPONSOR MEMO, supra note 144.
80. See OR. REV. STAT. ANN. §§ 475.300-346 (West 2015).
81. See 21 R. I. GEN. LAWS § 21-28.6-1 (2015).
82. See VT. STAT. ANN. tit. 18, §§ 4471-4474m (2015).
83. See Raich v. Ashcroft, 248 F. Supp. 2d 918 (N. D. Cal. 2003).
84. See Raich v. Ashcroft, 352 F.3d 1222 (9th Cir. 2003).
85. 545 U. S. 1 (2005).
86. See 1999 Wash. Sess. Laws 1-6.
87. See WASH. REV. CODE §§ 69.51A.005-69.51A.903 (2015).
88. See 1999 Wash. Sess. Laws 2.
89. WASH. REV. CODE. § 69.51A.005 (1) (b) (2015).
90. 2011 Wash. Sess. Laws 1346.
91. ALASKA STAT. § 17.38.010 (a) (2015).
92. See ALASKA STAT. § 17.38.010 (d) ("Nothing in this Act proposes or intends to require any individual or entity to engage in any conduct that violates federal law, or exempt any individual or entity from any requirement of federal law, or pose any obstacle to federal enforcement of federal law.").
93. See COLO. CONST. art. XVIII, § 16;
94. COLO. CONST. art. XVIII, § 16 (1) (a) (LexisNexis, through Second Regular Sess. Of Sixty-Ninth Gen. Assemb. of the State of Colo. (2014)).
95. See Minutes, supra note 133, at 24-25.
96. COLO. CONST. art. XVIII, § 16 (1) (b).
97. Colo. Exec. Order B 2012-004 (2012).
98. AMENDMENT 64 IMPLEMENTATION TASK FORCE, TASK FORCE REPORT ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF AMENDMENT 64: REGULATION OF MARIJUANA IN COLORADO 7(2013), http://www.colorado.gov/cms/forms/dor-tax/A64TaskForceFinalReport.pdf.
99. See Minutes of the Meeting of the Assemb. Comm. on Judiciary, 2013 Leg., 77th Sess. 29 (Nev. June 1, 2013) (statement of Jennifer Soles).
100. ALASKA STAT. § 17.38.010 (d) (2014).
101. WASH. REV. CODE §§ 46.04, 46.20, 46.61, 69.50 (2015).
102. COLO. CONST. art. XVIII, § 16 (1) (a).
103. WILLIAM G. WHITTAKER, CONG. RESEARCH SERV., RL31501, CHILD LABOR IN AMERICA: HISTORY, POLICY, AND LEGISLATIVE ISSUES (2005).
104. (quoting Grace Abbott, Federal Regulation of Child Labor, 1906-38, 13 SOC. SERV. REV. 409, 411 (1939)).
105. 247 U. S. 251 (1918).
106. 259 U. S. 20 (1922).
107. 295 U. S. 495 (1935).
108. See generally Daniel E. Ho & Kevin M. Quinn, Did a Switch in Time Save Nine?, 2 J. LEGAL ANALYSIS 69 (2010) (discussing the Supreme Court's change in thinking);
109. William E. Leuchtenburg, The Origins of Franklin D. Roosevelt's "Court-Packing" Plan, 1966 SUP. CT. REV. 347 (discussing the lead up and evolution of President Roosevelt's plan).
110. 300 U. S. 379 (1937).
111. Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U. S. 1(2005), held that Congress was able to regulate medical marijuana under the Commerce Clause. However, the Court as has not ruled on the preemptive effect of the CSA, which could provide room for the states to maneuver.
112. See Drew DeSilver, In Late Spurt of Activity, Congress Avoids 'Least Productive' Title, PEW RES. CTR. (Dec. 29, 2014), http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/12/29/in-late-spurt-of-activity-congress-avoids-least-pro ductive-title/.