West v. Holder
60 F. Supp. 3d 197
D.D.C.2015Background
- Plaintiff Arthur West, a medical-marijuana user in Washington State, sued federal and state officials challenging the DOJ’s August 2013 "Cole Memo" guidance limiting federal marijuana prosecutions in states that legalized recreational marijuana (I-502).
- West alleged constitutional violations (including Ninth and Tenth Amendment federalism harms), and statutory violations under NEPA and the APA, seeking to void the Cole Memo and require NEPA compliance.
- Washington’s I-502 remained in force and conflicts with federal Controlled Substances Act prohibitions on marijuana.
- The DOJ’s Cole Memo directed federal prosecutors to prioritize enforcement against certain harms (e.g., distribution to minors) rather than prosecute all marijuana offenses.
- The federal defendants moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6); the court previously dismissed state defendants and now considered dismissal of federal defendants.
- The court dismissed West’s claims for lack of Article III standing and because the Cole Memo reflected prosecutorial discretion that is presumptively unreviewable; NEPA/APA claims also failed to state a claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III standing — injury | West: Cole Memo will make medical access harder, increase black market, and cause environmental/community harms | DOJ: Alleged harms are speculative, generalized grievances, not concrete or particularized | Held: No injury in fact; allegations speculative, generalized grievances insufficient |
| Causation / redressability | West: Cole Memo "allowed" state schemes; cites state/task-force references to memo | DOJ: Any harm flows from independent state actions (I-502, local approvals), not DOJ; court cannot redress third-party decisions | Held: No causation or redressability; connection to defendants is speculative |
| Justiciability — prosecutorial discretion | West: Challenging underlying executive decision behind memo (not just memo) as unconstitutional/agency action | DOJ: Memo and priorities reflect prosecutorial discretion, presumptively unreviewable; APA review limited for non-enforcement decisions | Held: Claims challenge prosecutorial discretion and are unreviewable; dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
| NEPA / APA claims | West: Memo is a "major federal action" requiring an EIS and review under APA | DOJ: Memo is internal enforcement guidance, not a major federal action; non-enforcement decisions presumptively immune from APA review | Held: NEPA/APA claims fail to state a claim; NEPA inapplicable and APA review barred for non-enforcement decisions |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing requires injury in fact, causation, redressability)
- Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U.S. 398 (speculative future harms do not confer standing)
- Simon v. E. Ky. Welfare Rights Org., 426 U.S. 26 (causation cannot rest on independent third-party actions)
- Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149 (future injuries must be certainly impending)
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83 (court must ensure Article III jurisdiction before reaching merits)
- Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598 (prosecutorial discretion is ill-suited to judicial review)
- Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (agency decisions not to enforce are presumptively unreviewable under APA)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading requires factual plausibility)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (legal conclusions not accepted as true on a motion to dismiss)