Re: Does Federal Law always supersede State Law?

In my response of 9/13 to this question, I did not intend to say that the Commerce Clause argument would be successful. The substance of my response was that the question is before the Ninth Circuit and that no other cases have addressed it up to this point. Actually, I have no idea what the court will do with this. There are certainly good arguments against application of the Commerce Clause in the context of a local grow for local distribution under state law. Allowing patients to access marijuana through grows under local control (in this case the grow was authorized by the City of Oakland) means that patients will not be forced to buy their pot in the commercial market. This approach enhances rather than inhibits the enforcement of federal drug laws which aim to put the commercial dealers out of business.

Re: Does Federal Law always supersede State Law?

Well, my prediction has been proven wrong. On December 16, the Ninth Circuit decided the case of Raich v. Aschcroft and ruled in favor of the medicinal marijuana users. Technically, the court did not say that California's law prevails over federal laws, but it wasn't really asked to make that decision. It did hold that the users are entitled to an injunction while they litigate the effectiveness of the California law. This holding is based on the court's conclusion that the users are likely to win their suit in the trial court.

The case was decided by a 2-1 vote, and the opinion of the dissenting judge makes the same points I made in my prior responses. (He also makes some interesting procedural arguments as to why the case shouldn't be decided at all; I think he's right on those points, but they aren't about the issue we're discussing here.) I think he got it right and that the majority got it wrong.

This is one of those occasional cases that seems likely to be decided by the Supreme Court. It will be very interesting to see how the Court handles this one (I'm even more interested because I've known the plaintiffs' lead attorney for many years); I wouldn't be surprised if they kick out the case on the procedural grounds I mentioned earlier and don't decide it on the merits.

Re: Does Federal Law always supersede State Law?

The Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution is the source of the doctrine that federal law preempts state law enactments that are in conflict with federal law. The US Supreme Court ruled in the Oakland Cannabis Buyers Club case that there is no "medical necessity" defense to the federal Controlled Substances Act. This means that medical marijuana users who have recommendations from doctors under Proposition 215 are not protected from federal prosecution. This seems to resolve the matter but not quite. In the Oakland Cannabis Buyers Club case, the Supreme Court did not decide the question of federal law preemption. That issue is currently before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. It arises in the case of U.S. v. Edward Rosenthal. He was convicted of growing non-commercially for local distribution. The argument is that this activity is beyond the reach of federal regulation under the Commerce clause--which is the constitional foundation for all federal drug laws. Therefore, we'll have to wait and see whether there will be a definitive ruling on this issue.

Re: Does Federal Law always supersede State Law?

I have read Mr. Beauvais's response, which suggests that there is a realistic chance of a court decision that the federal government lacks the authority to bar medical use of marijuana. Not so. The court hasn't decided the case yet, but that doesn't mean the advocates of medical marijuana have a viable case.

The federal government's power under the Commerce clause (which Mr. Beauvais correctly identifies as the source of federal power over state issues) has *very* rarely been found not to authorize a challenged federal law. Given the extent of commerce in marijuana and in other medical treatments, it is not plausible that this argument will succeed.

I am not arguing that federal law *should* forbid medical use of marijuana. I'm just explaining that it does, and that the current challenge to that law is doomed to failure.

Re: Does Federal Law always supersede State Law?

Where federal and state laws are in conflict, federal law *always* prevails in *all* situations. There aren't a lot of absolute rules in law, but this is one of them.

Of course, some situations that appear to be direct conflicts really aren't.

People who grow marijuana for medical use -- even where they legitimately have a medical reason and have a doctor's authorization -- are violating federal law, regardless of what California law might say on the subject. California's laws will not constitute a defense in a federal prosecution.