24 F.4th 705
1st Cir.2022Background
- Maine authorized limited "medical use" of marijuana through a statutory scheme that allowed qualifying patients to designate primary caregivers, capped plant counts and prepared-marijuana amounts, and barred "collectives."
- The federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) criminalizes marijuana; Gonzales v. Raich confirmed federal prohibition despite state medical programs.
- Since 2015 Congress has included an appropriations rider (Rohrabacher‑Blumenauer) barring DOJ funds from being used to "prevent" certain states from implementing medical‑marijuana laws.
- Federal agents investigated and executed warrants at three multiroom grow sites tied to Bilodeau, Poland, and related LLCs, seizing large quantities of marijuana, plants, sales ledgers, and other indicia of large‑scale distribution.
- Defendants moved to enjoin federal prosecutions under the appropriations rider (and Bilodeau separately sought suppression and a Franks hearing); the district court denied relief, finding a large‑scale black‑market operation and that the rider did not bar prosecution.
- Defendants appealed the denial of the injunction; the court evaluated (1) appellate jurisdiction over the interlocutory order and (2) the rider's scope and application to these facts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (United States) | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to review denial of injunction under appropriations rider | Interlocutory denial is reviewable under §1292(a)(1) / collateral‑order principles | Appeal permissible because injunction denial irreparably allows spending of appropriated funds | Court has jurisdiction to review the denial of the injunction under collateral‑order principles |
| Scope of the appropriations rider (what counts as "prevent[ing] implementation") | Rider should permit prosecution unless defendant shows strict, full compliance with every state condition | Rider bars DOJ from prosecuting most participants with state licenses or facial compliance; protects state implementation | Rider bars DOJ spending that would prevent a state from giving practical effect to its medical‑marijuana laws; rejects rigid "strict compliance" test and adopts a practical‑effect approach |
| Application to these defendants (do prosecutions "prevent implementation") | Prosecution allowed because defendants ran a large‑scale illicit operation supplying non‑patients; Maine would not regard that conduct as within its medical regime | Defendants contend outward compliance (licenses/cards, inspections) shields them from federal prosecution under the rider | Factfinding shows defendants knowingly supplied non‑patients and engaged in black‑market distribution; rider does not bar prosecution here |
| Burden of proof; reviewability of suppression/Franks rulings now | Defendants seeking an injunction bear the burden to prove entitlement; suppression/Franks appeals are premature and not inextricably intertwined | Defendants argued the district court misallocated burden and that suppression is intertwined with the injunction issue | Court assigns burden to defendants seeking injunctive relief and declines to review suppression/Franks rulings on interlocutory appeal (premature) |
Key Cases Cited
- Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005) (CSA criminalizes marijuana even for medical use under federal law)
- United States v. McIntosh, 833 F.3d 1163 (9th Cir. 2016) (interpreting appropriations rider to bar DOJ actions that prevent states from giving practical effect to medical‑marijuana laws)
- United States v. Evans, 929 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 2019) (applied McIntosh framework in reviewing rider challenges)
- Midland Asphalt Corp. v. United States, 489 U.S. 794 (1989) (limitations on interlocutory appellate review; collateral‑order considerations)
- Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949) (tests for collateral‑order appeal)
- United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338 (1974) (grand juries may consider evidence obtained in unlawful searches)