James v. City of Costa Mesa
700 F.3d 394
9th Cir.2012Background
- Plaintiffs are gravely ill California residents who use doctor-recommended medical marijuana under state law to manage pain.
- Costa Mesa and Lake Forest took steps to shut down or restrict medical marijuana dispensaries/collectives within their jurisdictions.
- Plaintiffs sued in federal court alleging Title II ADA discrimination by city actions denying access to public services.
- District court denied preliminary relief, holding ADA protection does not extend to medical marijuana use under federal law.
- The key statutory question is whether § 12210(d)(1)'s supervised-use exception or its broader federal-authORIZATION language covers state-legal, doctor-supervised marijuana use.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does §12210(d)(1) include doctor-supervised medical marijuana as an ADA exception? | James argues the supervised-use language creates an ADA exception. | Cities contend only CSA/federal-law authorization is the exception. | The majority adopts the Cities’ interpretation; doctor-supervised medical marijuana is not within the ADA exception. |
| Can Congress’ DC Initiative 59 action be read as federal authorization for medical marijuana use under §12210(d)(1)? | Initiative 59 actions constitute federal authorization. | Congress did not authorize medical marijuana; actions were non-authorization. | No, DC action does not authorize medical marijuana under §12210(d)(1). |
| Does the ADA Title II protect medical marijuana users from discrimination based on marijuana use? | Discrimination based on medical marijuana use should be prohibited. | Illegal drug use exclusion applies; ADA does not protect such users. | No, federally illegal drug use exclusion excludes protection for medical marijuana users. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Cabaccang, 332 F.3d 622 (9th Cir. 2003) (statutory interpretation guidance in context of ambiguous text)
- Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (U.S. 2005) (federal policy on medical marijuana and CSA context)
- Conant v. Walters, 309 F.3d 629 (9th Cir. 2002) (medical marijuana in federal/state context; IND program relevance)
- Ross v. RagingWire Telecommunications Inc., 42 Cal.4th 920 (Cal. 2008) (state disability law interaction with marijuana use and criminal status under CSA)
- Barnhart v. Thomas, 540 U.S. 20 (U.S. 2003) (last antecedent rule and statutory interpretation and canons)
- Misco, United Paperworkers Int’l Union v. Misco, 484 U.S. 29 (U.S. 1987) (direct conflict vs. general public policy considerations in statutory interpretation)