United States v. Steve McIntosh
833 F.3d 1163
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- Ten consolidated interlocutory appeals and mandamus petitions from three district courts (Northern and Eastern Districts of California; Eastern District of Washington) involving defendants indicted under the Controlled Substances Act for large-scale marijuana manufacturing/distribution.
- Congress enacted an appropriations rider (Consolidated Appropriations Act §542) prohibiting Department of Justice (DOJ) funds from being used "to prevent any of" a listed set of jurisdictions from "implementing their own laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana."
- Defendants moved to dismiss or enjoin federal prosecutions under §542; district courts denied relief, concluding defendants had not shown full compliance with state medical marijuana laws or that the question should be resolved at trial.
- Defendants appealed interlocutorily from denials of injunctive relief and sought mandamus in some cases; the government argued limits on interlocutory jurisdiction and urged narrow standing.
- The Ninth Circuit found jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1292(a)(1) (direct denials of injunctions) and held defendants had Article III standing to assert separation-of-powers/Appropriations Clause challenges because threatened prosecutions cause concrete, redressable injury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to hear interlocutory appeals | Appellants: direct denials of injunctions are appealable under §1292(a)(1) | Gov: §1292(a)(1) requires showing practical effect/irreparable harm per Carson | Court: §1292(a)(1) applies to direct denials of injunctions; Carson’s extra test not required for direct denials; jurisdiction exists |
| Standing to challenge prosecutions under Appropriations Clause | Appellants: threatened prosecutions cause imminent, concrete injury and may assert separation-of-powers limits | Gov: challenges improperly asserted by private defendants | Court: appellants have Article III standing; Bond and precedent permit private parties to assert separation-of-powers/appropriations constraints |
| Scope of §542 (what DOJ conduct it bars) | Appellants (broad): §542 bars DOJ prosecutions unless conduct is clearly outside state law or even bars prosecutions of licensed state actors | Gov (narrow): §542 does not prevent federal prosecution of private individuals; it targets actions that prevent states from implementing laws (e.g., suits against states) | Court: §542 bars DOJ spending to prosecute individuals whose conduct is fully authorized by state medical-marijuana laws; it does not bar prosecutions of persons who fail to strictly comply with state-law conditions |
| Remedy and procedure when §542 is implicated | Appellants: dismissal or injunction against prosecutions | Gov: prosecutions should proceed; factual questions for jury | Court: vacated denials and remanded for evidentiary hearings to determine whether each defendant’s conduct was completely authorized by state law; remedy left to district courts, balancing temporal nature of funding limit and speedy-trial rights |
Key Cases Cited
- Gunn v. Minton, 133 S. Ct. 1059 (2013) (federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction)
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83 (1998) (court must assure jurisdiction before reaching merits)
- Carson v. American Brands, 450 U.S. 79 (1981) (appealability of orders having practical effect on injunctions)
- Shee Atika v. Sealaska Corp., 39 F.3d 247 (9th Cir. 1994) (distinguishing direct denials of injunctions from Carson’s practical-effect test)
- Bond v. United States, 564 U.S. 211 (2011) (private defendants may invoke separation-of-powers constraints when asserting defenses)
- Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005) (CSA broadly prohibits marijuana; states’ laws conflict with federal prohibition)
- Tennessee Valley Auth. v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153 (1978) (courts must enforce Congress’s express legislative priorities)
- United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Coop., 532 U.S. 483 (2001) (federal prohibition on marijuana use/distribution remains controlling)
- NLRB v. Noel Canning, 134 S. Ct. 2550 (2014) (recognition that separation-of-powers principles can be invoked by private parties)