Sibley v. Obama
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12843
D.D.C.2012Background
- Plaintiff seeks to participate in DC medical marijuana program and challenges federal prosecution risk under the CSA.
- Plaintiff alleges promises not to enforce the CSA for medical marijuana and seeks constitutional and declaratory relief.
- Plaintiff challenges DC program rules requiring self-incrimination acknowledgments under the CSA.
- Defendants Obama and Holder move to dismiss for lack of standing; District defendants also move to dismiss.
- Court previously denied interim relief against District; now rules on standing and mootness; grants some motions and dismisses defendants.
- Plaintiff seeks to reassign or disqualify judge and various clerical relief, which the court addresses in separate rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to sue against federal defendants for preenforcement challenge | Sibley faces credible threat of CSA prosecution | No imminent injury; threat speculative | Lacked standing; dismissal granted against federal defendants |
| Preenforcement challenge to CSA not via First Amendment | Challenge based on Commerce/Ninth/Tenth Amendments | Not a First Amendment preenforcement case | Proper Navegar/Seegars analysis applied; no standing |
| Mootness of claims against District defendants | Affidavit requirement violates self-incrimination rights | Plaintiff signed affidavit; moot case | District claim moot; District dismissed |
| Self-incrimination claim for District affidavit | Affidavit infringes Fifth Amendment rights | No coercion or compelled self-incrimination shown | No substantial likelihood of success; injunction denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (standing requires injury, causation, redressability)
- Seegars v. Gonzales, 396 F.3d 1248 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (non-First Amendment challenges may be justiciable if credible preenforcement threat exists)
- Navegar, Inc. v. United States, 103 F.3d 994 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (preenforcement standing requires credible, immediate threat to enforce statute)
- Babbitt v. United Farm Workers Nat’l Union, 442 U.S. 289 (U.S. 1979) (historical standing framework; later circuit refinements apply)