Robert Celt
New Member
After seven months, the federal government has finally weighed in on the U.S. Supreme Court's request that it opine on the Nebraska and Oklahoma v. Colorado marijuana lawsuit. And I'm happy to write that the Solicitor General (i.e., the Fed's premier attorney) is telling SCOTUS to throw in the towel and not hear the case at all. This is a major political and legal boon for Colorado and for the marijuana industry as a whole.
As you may recall, in December of last year, Nebraska and Oklahoma filed suit against Colorado in the United States Supreme Court, seeking to invalidate Colorado's cannabis legalization laws.
Nebraska and Oklahoma want the Supreme Court to invalidate Colorado laws implementing its 2012 voter initiative. These two states claim Colorado has created a "cross-border nuisance" by increasing the supply of marijuana flowing through the region, something exacerbated by the Obama administration's policy of not interfering with state legalization experiments. Nebraska and Oklahoma assert that Colorado's legalization measure is pre-empted by federal law and should be struck down.
Both Washington and Oregon filed amicus briefs supporting Colorado's right to legalize cannabis for adult use. Most recently, SCOTUS asked the Office of the Solicitor General to explain the federal government's "position" on the litigation, potentially testing the strength of the most recent Cole Memo.
In his amicus curiae brief on behalf of the Solicitor General's Office, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, Jr. sides with Colorado. Verrilli argues that the lawsuit does not fall under the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction and, therefore, SCOTUS has no power to take the case:
The brief goes on to say that the injuries allegedly suffered by Nebraska and Oklahoma are not "direct [injuries] to their sovereign interests warranting an exercise of original jurisdiction. At most, they have alleged that third-party lawbreakers are inflicting those injuries, and that Colorado's legal regime makes it easier for them to do so."
The Solicitor General argues that this case differs from previous cases where SCOTUS ruled on disputes between states grappling with each other over cross-border pollution, environmental damage inflicted by one state on another, or boundary disputes. Since Colorado has only permitted (not specifically approved of or directed) its marijuana commercial activity to impact, affect, or injure the Plaintiff states, the Solicitor General's position is that neither Nebraska nor Oklahoma can show any direct injury to their sovereign interests warranting SCOTUS review:
It's great for the cannabis industry to see the federal government's number one attorney telling SCOTUS it lacks jurisdiction to hear this case. Nonetheless, these arguments are all based on procedure, not on the actual merits of the case. The Feds are essentially trying to shut down this lawsuit without having to navigate any of the factual or legal issues in play, including whether federal law preempts Colorado's recreational marijuana laws.
Though I would like to see the Feds tout the tenets of the Cole Memo and admit there is no federal preemption if a state opts to legalize marijuana with a robust licensing and taxation system, if SCOTUS dismisses the suit on procedural grounds it will still be a big "W" for the state-legal cannabis industry.
News Moderator: Robert Celt 420 MAGAZINE ®
Full Article: Top Fed Attorney Says Colorado Pot Lawsuit Should Be Cashed
Author: Hilary Bricken
Contact: Above The Law
Photo Credit: None found
Website: Above The Law
As you may recall, in December of last year, Nebraska and Oklahoma filed suit against Colorado in the United States Supreme Court, seeking to invalidate Colorado's cannabis legalization laws.
Nebraska and Oklahoma want the Supreme Court to invalidate Colorado laws implementing its 2012 voter initiative. These two states claim Colorado has created a "cross-border nuisance" by increasing the supply of marijuana flowing through the region, something exacerbated by the Obama administration's policy of not interfering with state legalization experiments. Nebraska and Oklahoma assert that Colorado's legalization measure is pre-empted by federal law and should be struck down.
Both Washington and Oregon filed amicus briefs supporting Colorado's right to legalize cannabis for adult use. Most recently, SCOTUS asked the Office of the Solicitor General to explain the federal government's "position" on the litigation, potentially testing the strength of the most recent Cole Memo.
In his amicus curiae brief on behalf of the Solicitor General's Office, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, Jr. sides with Colorado. Verrilli argues that the lawsuit does not fall under the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction and, therefore, SCOTUS has no power to take the case:
The brief goes on to say that the injuries allegedly suffered by Nebraska and Oklahoma are not "direct [injuries] to their sovereign interests warranting an exercise of original jurisdiction. At most, they have alleged that third-party lawbreakers are inflicting those injuries, and that Colorado's legal regime makes it easier for them to do so."
The Solicitor General argues that this case differs from previous cases where SCOTUS ruled on disputes between states grappling with each other over cross-border pollution, environmental damage inflicted by one state on another, or boundary disputes. Since Colorado has only permitted (not specifically approved of or directed) its marijuana commercial activity to impact, affect, or injure the Plaintiff states, the Solicitor General's position is that neither Nebraska nor Oklahoma can show any direct injury to their sovereign interests warranting SCOTUS review:
It's great for the cannabis industry to see the federal government's number one attorney telling SCOTUS it lacks jurisdiction to hear this case. Nonetheless, these arguments are all based on procedure, not on the actual merits of the case. The Feds are essentially trying to shut down this lawsuit without having to navigate any of the factual or legal issues in play, including whether federal law preempts Colorado's recreational marijuana laws.
Though I would like to see the Feds tout the tenets of the Cole Memo and admit there is no federal preemption if a state opts to legalize marijuana with a robust licensing and taxation system, if SCOTUS dismisses the suit on procedural grounds it will still be a big "W" for the state-legal cannabis industry.
News Moderator: Robert Celt 420 MAGAZINE ®
Full Article: Top Fed Attorney Says Colorado Pot Lawsuit Should Be Cashed
Author: Hilary Bricken
Contact: Above The Law
Photo Credit: None found
Website: Above The Law
