17 F.4th 1273
9th Cir.2021Background:
- Richard Langley pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography and was sentenced to time served plus a 10-year term of supervised release.
- Statutorily required conditions of supervised release included prohibitions on committing crimes and unlawful possession/use of controlled substances.
- Langley sought (2017; renewed 2020) amendment of his supervised-release conditions to permit use of medical marijuana under California law to treat severe pain from a prior accident; supported his renewal with a physician’s report.
- The district court denied both motions, reasoning federal law still classifies marijuana as a controlled substance and Langley has no constitutional right to use medical marijuana; therefore it could not modify the statutorily required conditions.
- Langley appealed; the Ninth Circuit reviews constitutional questions de novo but is bound by its prior precedent unless overruled by a higher authority.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Langley has a substantive due process right to use medical marijuana | Langley: fundamental right to use medical marijuana on physician’s advice to relieve pain and preserve bodily integrity | Government: CSA classifies marijuana as a Schedule I drug and supervised-release statutes prohibit such use; no constitutional right exists | Court: Bound by Raich — no fundamental right to medical marijuana; claim fails |
| Whether the district court erred in refusing to amend supervised-release conditions | Langley: court should permit medical use given medical necessity and state law | Government: court lacked authority because federal statutes require the prohibitory conditions | Court: Affirmed denial; statutory requirements and Raich control |
Key Cases Cited
- Raich v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 850 (9th Cir. 2007) (rejected substantive due process right to use medical marijuana)
- Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997) (two-part test for identifying fundamental rights under substantive due process)
- Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (published panel decisions bind later panels until overruled by higher authority)
- Gonzalez v. Arizona, 677 F.3d 383 (9th Cir. 2012) (published decisions of the court are binding authority)
- Wilson v. Lynch, 835 F.3d 1083 (9th Cir. 2016) (holding substantive-due-process claim based on medical-marijuana right foreclosed by Raich)