164 F. Supp. 3d 1286
D. Colo.2016Background
- Amendment 64 (2012) legalized recreational marijuana for adults 21+ in Colorado.
- Plaintiffs, law enforcement officials from Colorado, Kansas, and Nebraska, challenge Amendment 64 subsections 3–5 as conflicting with federal law and international treaties.
- Plaintiffs seek a declaration that these sections are unconstitutional and an injunction against enforcement.
- Plaintiffs allege preemption under the CSA and related international conventions, plus U.S. foreign policy considerations.
- Defendant moves to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) arguing lack of standing, no private right of action, and no preemption; motion granted.
- Court holds there is no private right of action under the CSA or International Conventions and declines to allow equitable relief to enforce preemption.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do CSA or International Conventions create private rights or remedies? | Plaintiffs claim rights and remedies exist under CSA and treaties. | CSA and conventions do not create private rights or remedies. | No private rights/remedies under CSA or conventions. |
| Does the Supremacy Clause create a private action for preemption? | Supremacy Clause provides private enforcement of preemption. | Supremacy Clause is a decision rule, not a source of private rights. | Supremacy Clause does not create a private action. |
| Can plaintiffs obtain equitable relief to enforce federal preemption of state marijuana laws? | Equity could enjoin enforcement of Amendment 64. | Armstrong precludes private equitable relief for federal enforcement of CSA policies. | Equitable relief precluded; Armstrong controls. |
Key Cases Cited
- Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (U.S. 2001) (private rights must be created by statute; intent required for private remedy)
- Gonzaga Univ. v. John Doe, 536 U.S. 273 (U.S. 2002) (text must express rights for private action; private remedy required)
- Medellin v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491 (U.S. 2008) (international agreements generally do not provide private causes of action)
- Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Ctr., 135 S. Ct. 1378 (U.S. 2015) (Supremacy Clause as decision rule; private enforcement precluded by statute and scheme)
- Cuba Soil and Water Conservation Dist. v. Lewis, 527 F.3d 1061 (10th Cir. 2008) (private rights require affirmative statutory text; no implied action)
- Love v. Delta Air Lines, 310 F.3d 1347 (11th Cir. 2002) (discussion of rights-creating language in statutes)