866 F. Supp. 2d 1142
N.D. Cal.2011Background
- This is a federal action challenging DOJ threats to enforce the CSA against California medical marijuana activities and landlords/patients operating under state law.
- Plaintiffs seek a TRO to halt federal arrest, prosecution, or sanctions for those complying with California’s Compassionate Use Act.
- Defendants are federal prosecutors and agencies who have issued letters threatening enforcement actions and who rely on existing Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit precedent.
- Relevant federal-law framework: marijuana is Schedule I under the CSA, with no currently accepted medical use per federal law; state authorization via California’s CUA creates a federal-state tension.
- California’s Compassionate Use Act and related Medical Marijuana Program operate alongside, and are constrained by, federal enforcement priorities and authority; Santa Cruz litigation and the Ogden memo are noted as background policy references.
- The court analyzes four sets of controlling authorities (Oakland Cannabis, Raich decisions) and the Ogden memo to determine likelihood of success and resulting TRO denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Likelihood of success on the merits | Raich II shows evolving rights favoring medical marijuana use | Raich I/II and Oakland Cannabis foreclose a federal right to compel/permit medical marijuana use | Plaintiffs fail to show likelihood of success on merits |
| Judicial estoppel | Defendants are estopped by Santa Cruz stipulation relating to Ogden memo | Government cannot be estopped in enforcing federal law; no clear inconsistency or unfair advantage | No likelihood of success on judicial estoppel claim |
| Equitable estoppel (entrapment) | Ogden memo misled landlords/patients into leasing based on legal guidance | Ogden memo not directed to plaintiffs; no affirmative misrepresentation; reliance unreasonable | No likelihood of success on equitable estoppel claim |
| Due process under Fifth/Ninth Amendments | Fundamental right to bodily integrity and medical decision-making | Raich II forecloses a fundamental right to use medical marijuana; federal law treats marijuana as contraband | No likelihood of success on due process claim |
| Commerce Clause alternative (and related public interest) | Intrastate California medical marijuana regulation should be subject to federal regulation | Raich I/II sustain Congress’s Commerce Clause authority over intrastate marijuana use | No likelihood of success on Commerce Clause claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative v. United States, 532 U.S. 483 (Sup. Ct. 2001) (Schedule I status of marijuana bars medical-use exception; no medical necessity defense under CSA; court binds to Congress balance)
- Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (Sup. Ct. 2005) (Commerce Clause authority allows regulation of intrastate medical marijuana use; CSA balanced against state laws)
- Raich v. Ashcroft, 500 F.3d 850 (9th Cir. 2007) (Raich II; right to use medical marijuana not yet fundamental; Raich II discussion of Raich I and standards)
- Raich v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court decision cited above) (As above; cited as Raich I for initial holding on Commerce Clause)
- Heckler v. Community Health Services, 467 U.S. 51 (Sup. Ct. 1984) (Government not estopped from enforcing law against public policy; public interest)
- New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742 (Sup. Ct. 2001) (Nonprivate interests; context for government estoppel concerns)
- Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (Sup. Ct. 2003) (Used to discuss emergence of rights not yet fundamental; evolving liberty)