Sibley v. Obama
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104974
D.D.C.2011Background
- Plaintiff Montgomery Blair Sibley seeks a TRO against DC Mayor and DC Department of Health to stop requiring an affidavit that acknowledges federal criminal laws on marijuana for his medical marijuana license application.
- Plaintiff argues the affidavit violates his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination by acknowledging federal law criminalizes marijuana activity and that DC’s program is not preempted by federal law.
- DC is in the process of implementing a medical marijuana program and requires applicants to sign an affidavit about the federal illegality of marijuana.
- Plaintiff asserts the affidavit forces self-incriminating testimony and attempts to preclude his participation in the DC program.
- The court reviews the TRO standards and concludes the movant must show substantial likelihood of success, irreparable harm, no substantial injury to others, and public interest alignment.
- The court ultimately denies the TRO, finding no substantial likelihood of success on the merits or compelling justification for extraordinary relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the affidavit requirement implicate self-incrimination? | Sibley contends it violates Fifth Amendment rights. | The affidavit merely states federal law; no compulsion is shown. | No substantial likelihood of success; no coercion shown. |
| Whether acknowledging federal law in the affidavit constitutes a waiver of rights or defenses. | Acknowledgment waives defenses like entrapment or invalidity of statute. | Waiver of defenses is not shown to involve self-incrimination. | Waiver claim rejected; not shown to implicate self-incrimination. |
| Did the plaintiff face compulsion to apply or testify under the program conditions? | Compelled to sign and participate under threat of program denial. | Applicant is not compelled to seek participation in the program. | Not compelled; no basis for TRO. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70 (U.S. 1973) (self-incrimination requires compulsion to testify)
- Selective Serv. Sys. v. Minnesota Pub. Interest Research Grp., 468 U.S. 841 (U.S. 1984) (no compulsion to seek benefits when not obliged to do so)
- Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674 (U.S. 2008) (balancing four-factor test for TROs; likelihood of success required)
- Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968 (U.S. 1997) (TRO standards and likelihood of success framework)
- Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches v. England, 454 F.3d 290 (D.C.Cir. 2006) (four-factor balancing for TROs in DC Circuit)
- City-Fed Fin. Corp. v. Office of Thrift Supervision, 58 F.3d 738 (D.C.Cir. 1995) (balancing considerations for injunctions)