On March 21, 2016, the highest court of the United States declined to hear a case regarding an interstate dispute involving Colorado’s legalization of marijuana. You may recall, in 2012 Colorado voters legalized possession of marijuana and authorized creation of state-administered rules for the sale of marijuana. Since retail sales of marijuana began in Colorado in 2014, Nebraska and Oklahoma jointly allege an increased number of people bringing marijuana into their states, in violation of their States’ and federal laws. A motion and complaint was filed directly with the Supreme Court, since the matter involves a dispute between states.
Nebraska and Oklahoma alleged that the federal government has preeminent authority to regulate interstate and foreign commerce, including legal and illegal trafficking of marijuana, in accordance with the Controlled Substances Act. The complaint further alleged that since Colorado adopted the laws which enable and support the commercialization of marijuana, Nebraska and Oklahoma have suffered harm from the increased presence of Colorado-sourced marijuana being trafficked into their state borders. Such harm, the neighboring states claimed, includes substantial increased costs for the apprehension, incarceration, and prosecution of suspected and convicted felons, in addition to the increased costs for law enforcement associated with the arrest, impoundment of vehicles, seizure of contraband, transfer of prisoners, and appearance of law enforcement personnel in court. The complaint also alleged Colorado’s laws are devoid of safeguards to ensure marijuana cultivated and sold in Colorado is not trafficked to other states, creating a “dangerous gap in the federal drug control system.” The gap, petitioners claimed, from which marijuana flows into neighboring states purportedly undermines the plaintiff States’ own marijuana bans, drains their treasuries, and places stress on their criminal justice systems.
The first step in the lawsuit was for the Supreme Court to accept the case. After more than a year of debate, the Supreme Court announced their decision: the motion for leave to file a bill of complaint was denied. After a 6-2 vote, Judge Thomas explained in his dissent that he would have granted leave to file a complaint, as “this dispute falls within our original and exclusive jurisdiction.” After mentioning the Supreme Court has previously used discretion to weed out cases that may fall within their exclusive jurisdiction, Judge Thomas disagreed with the majority, stating, “federal law is unambiguous: If there is a controversy between two States, this Court—and only this Court—has jurisdiction over it.” Judge Thomas further claimed, “whatever the merit of the plaintiff States’ claims, we should let this complaint proceed further rather than denying leave without so much as a word of explanation.”
Stephen Goldman, owner of Renewable Sciences, a consulting company which specializes in the Cannabis industry, analytical chemistry, biofuels and chemical engineering, and Laboratory Director at a leading Cannabis testing facility in Denver, Colorado, had this to say about the case:
“The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to decline to hear Oklahoma and Nebraska’s lawsuit against Colorado’s legalization of marijuana proves that the unlawful behavior of individuals cannot disqualify the legislation of a neighboring state. Although it is unfortunate that individuals may be acting irresponsibly in those states, the string of Cannabis‘ legal wins provides clarity that these laws are here to stay. This is good news for all pro-Cannabis interests both in the state of Colorado, and federally, and should lead to many more business and medical opportunities in locations where Cannabis is legal.”
Nevertheless, while the high court has passed on this controversy, the case may still burn on, although the challenges against Colorado may now end up in a federal district court instead.