552 F. App'x 680
9th Cir.2014Background
- Plaintiffs (medical marijuana distributors, patients, and landlords) sued federal law enforcement seeking injunctive relief to bar prosecution under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) for activities authorized by California medical-marijuana law.
- Three district courts dismissed the consolidated actions for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); appeals followed.
- Plaintiffs asserted constitutional claims: Ninth Amendment and Fifth Amendment substantive due process protecting a right to distribute/possess/use medical cannabis; and an Equal Protection challenge to the CSA.
- Plaintiffs also invoked judicial estoppel, arguing the Government previously agreed (in a different case and via the Ogden Memorandum) not to enforce the CSA against California medical-marijuana activities.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo the 12(b)(6) dismissals and for abuse of discretion the judicial-estoppel ruling, and consolidated the appeals for decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Substantive due process / Ninth Amendment right to use/distribute medical marijuana | Medical use and distribution of cannabis in compliance with California law is a fundamental right protected by the Fifth and Ninth Amendments | Prior Ninth Circuit precedent forecloses recognition of such a fundamental right | Rejected: Raich II controls; no fundamental right recognized |
| Equal Protection challenge to CSA | Federal prohibition of medical marijuana lacks rational basis (permits prescription drugs but bans marijuana) | CSA classification is rationally related to legitimate federal interests; precedent rejects the claim | Rejected: Court relies on precedent affirming rational basis for CSA scheduling |
| Judicial estoppel against Government enforcement of CSA | Government previously stipulated (and relied on Ogden Memorandum) not to enforce CSA against medical marijuana, so it should be estopped from enforcing now | Government did not clearly promise nonenforcement; no clear inconsistent positions or misleading of court; estoppel would harm government interest in law enforcement | Rejected: No clear inconsistency, no misleading, and estoppel inappropriate where it would impair government interest |
| Request for injunctive relief against federal enforcement | Injunction required to protect appellants from prosecution for state-authorized medical-marijuana activities | Injunction improper given legal and precedent barriers to recognizing claimed rights and estoppel | Denied: District courts properly dismissed the injunctive claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Raich v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 850 (9th Cir. 2007) (rejecting substantive due process right to use medical marijuana)
- New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742 (2001) (standards for judicial estoppel)
- Milton H. Greene Archives, Inc. v. Marilyn Monroe LLC, 692 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. 2012) (judicial-estoppel factors and abuse-of-discretion review)
- United States v. Miroyan, 577 F.2d 489 (9th Cir. 1978) (upholding marijuana scheduling under rational-basis review)
- James v. City of Costa Mesa, 700 F.3d 394 (9th Cir. 2012) (noting federal CSA prohibitions apply despite local decriminalization)