388 F. Supp. 3d 505
E.D. Pa.2019Background
- Defendant Cameron Jackson, on federal supervised release after a reduced sentence, tested positive for marijuana on ten occasions between May 2018 and March 2019; two tests predate his state medical-marijuana card.
- Supervised-release conditions bar possession or use of controlled substances except as prescribed by a physician; marijuana is a Schedule I drug under federal law with no medical-use exception.
- Jackson obtained a Pennsylvania medical marijuana identification card on July 6, 2018 (renewed Jan. 19, 2019); he contends his marijuana use complied with Pennsylvania's Medical Marijuana Act.
- The U.S. Probation Office filed a petition alleging ten violations; the U.S. Attorney’s Office would prosecute the revocation and DOJ-funded actors (AUSA, Marshals, BOP) would participate.
- The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019 §537 (a recurring appropriations rider), bars DOJ funds from being used to "prevent" listed states from "implementing" their medical-marijuana laws.
- The Court scheduled an evidentiary hearing to decide (1) whether Jackson’s use was fully compliant with state law and (2) whether the §537 rider bars DOJ from using funds to prosecute supervised-release violations premised on state-compliant medical-marijuana use.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does state-law–compliant medical-marijuana use violate federal supervised-release conditions? | Jackson: state-compliant use should not be punished in supervised-release proceedings. | Gov't: CSA classifies marijuana Schedule I; any use violates federal conditions. | Held: Yes—state-compliant use still violates supervised-release conditions because federal law criminalizes marijuana use. |
| Does the §537 appropriations rider prohibit DOJ from using funds to "prevent" a state from "implementing" its medical-marijuana law by prosecuting individuals? | Jackson: Rider bars DOJ from using funds to prosecute or otherwise interfere with state implementation; McIntosh supports broad application. | Gov't: Rider targets actions against states, not individualized federal enforcement; McIntosh was wrongly decided or limited. | Held: Rider applies broadly; DOJ actions that punish state-authorized conduct "prevent" implementation and are barred. |
| Does prosecuting a supervised-release violation based on state-compliant use constitute a DOJ "use of funds" under §537? | Jackson: AUSA participation, Marshals, filings, BOP involvement are DOJ-funded uses. | Gov't: Salaried personnel would be paid regardless; participation is minimal and speculative; petition comes from Probation (judicial branch). | Held: DOJ participation (AUSA, Marshals, BOP) constitutes use of DOJ funds; even diverted staff time satisfies the rider. |
| What procedure should follow given the rider? | Jackson: Dismiss petition or enjoin DOJ funds if state compliance established; evidentiary hearing to prove compliance. | Gov't: No preclusive effect; burden on defendant not met; some violations predate card. | Held: An evidentiary hearing is required for defendant to prove by a preponderance that his conduct strictly complied with state law; if proven, §537 bars DOJ funds for prosecution of those violations (but does not affect tests before the card issuance). |
Key Cases Cited
- Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (federal CSA preempts conflicting state marijuana rules)
- United States v. McIntosh, 833 F.3d 1163 (9th Cir. 2016) (§537 bars DOJ funds for prosecutions of state-compliant medical-marijuana conduct)
- United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative, 532 U.S. 483 (no medical-necessity exception to CSA)
- United States v. Schostag, 895 F.3d 1025 (8th Cir. 2018) (district court has no discretion to allow medical marijuana on supervised release)
- United States v. Nixon, 839 F.3d 885 (9th Cir. 2016) (denial of probation-modification request to allow medical marijuana; rider did not limit court authority)
- United States v. Pisarski, 274 F. Supp. 3d 1032 (N.D. Cal. 2017) (applied rider to sentencing proceedings)
- United States v. Marin Alliance for Medical Marijuana, 139 F. Supp. 3d 1039 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (applied rider to enforcement actions producing same practical effect)
- United States v. Bey, 341 F. Supp. 3d 528 (E.D. Pa. 2018) (found state-authorized medical-marijuana use violates supervised release; declined to decide §537)
- United States v. Kleinman, 880 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2017) (prosecution cannot bootstrap charges from conduct that would comply with state law)