United States v. Jayde Evans, 929 F.3d 1073

In 2011 Evans and Davis worked as trimmers at a large marijuana grow in Spokane County, Washington; federal and state officers seized 562 plants and federal prosecutors indicted multiple participants under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA).
Congress annually includes an appropriations rider (§ 538) prohibiting DOJ funds from being used to prevent states from implementing medical-marijuana laws; the defendants sought to enjoin federal prosecution under that rider.
This court’s prior decision in United States v. McIntosh held that § 538 allows defendants to seek injunctions preventing DOJ use of funds against persons whose conduct is "completely authorized" by state medical-marijuana law, but required strict compliance with state substantive rules.
On remand the district court held an evidentiary hearing focused on compliance with Washington’s Medical Use of Cannabis Act (MUCA); defendants bore the burden to prove strict compliance by a preponderance of the evidence.
The district court found Evans and Davis were not qualifying patients under MUCA (no timely physician testimony or valid qualifying card; Evans’s asserted condition of anxiety is not qualifying), and denied the injunction; Evans and Davis appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Who bears burden in § 538 injunction hearing?	Govt: burden should be on Government to prove lack of state-law compliance	Evans/Davis: Government must show noncompliance because funding is condition precedent to prosecution	Court: Defendants seeking injunction bear burden to prove by preponderance they strictly complied with state law
Must federal prosecutors obtain state-court jury determination of compliance before federal prosecution?	Govt: federal procedure controls; no need for state jury finding	Evans/Davis: MUCA entitles them to jury determination, so DOJ must secure one before prosecuting	Court: Procedural state-law mechanisms (e.g., jury rules) do not carry into § 538; no state jury verdict required
May defendants assert common-law defenses (e.g., entrapment by estoppel) to avoid federal prosecution under § 538?	Govt: Only state substantive authorizations matter under § 538	Evans/Davis: May assert common-law affirmative defenses to show prosecution barred	Court: No; § 538 inquiry is whether conduct is authorized by the state’s substantive medical-marijuana rules (MUCA), not by unrelated common-law defenses
Did the district court clearly err in finding lack of strict compliance with MUCA?	Defendants: they complied / had medical authorization	Government: defendants did not prove qualifying-patient status	Court: Affirmed; factual finding not clearly erroneous—no timely physician testimony or valid qualifying condition shown

United States v. McIntosh, 833 F.3d 1163 (9th Cir. 2016) (§ 538 permits injunctions only for those who strictly comply with state medical-marijuana law)
eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, LLC, 547 U.S. 388 (U.S. 2006) (party seeking injunction bears the burden to justify equitable relief)
Gilmore v. Taylor, 508 U.S. 333 (U.S. 1993) (different burdens of proof in criminal proceedings are governed by constitutional and statutory rules)
Herman & MacLean v. Huddleston, 459 U.S. 375 (U.S. 1983) (heightened proof standards may apply when particularly important interests are at stake)
United States v. Nixon, 839 F.3d 885 (9th Cir. 2016) (appropriations rider does not amend the CSA)
Garmon v. County of Los Angeles, 828 F.3d 837 (9th Cir. 2016) (interpretation of state law reviewed de novo)
United States v. Kent, 649 F.3d 906 (9th Cir. 2011) (factual findings reviewed for clear error)
United States v. McTiernan, 695 F.3d 882 (9th Cir. 2012) (standard for evaluating factual determinations in criminal contexts)