Today, the Ninth Circuit has issued the following order in the medical cannabis case of U.S. v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative case that I argued last September:
This matter was argued September 17, 2003. This court subsequently issued its decision in Raich v. Ashcroft, 352 F.3d 1222 (9th Cir. 2003), petition for cert. filed, (U.S. April 20, 2004) (No. 03-1454), on December 16, 2003. We vacated submission and ordered supplemental briefing. This case was resubmitted as of April 30, 2004.
The issues in Raich may control the outcome in this case. Accordingly, this case is remanded for the district court to reconsider after the Supreme Court has completed its action in Raich.
IT IS SO ORDERED
For those not keeping track, the Solicitor General has asked the Supreme Court to review the Ninth Circuit decision in Raich v. Ashcroft (the case I argued in October) that ruled that the application of the Controlled Substance Act to the activities of Angel Raich and Diane Monson with respect to their possession, cultivation and noncommercial acquisition of cannabis for medical purpose exceeded the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause (or could have exceeded its power if, after trial, the facts are found to be as we allege).
The government’s petition in Raich is on the June 24th calendar and we expect to hear a decision by June 28th. If review is granted we should argue the case this fall. If review is denied, then Judge Charles Breyer is now tasked by the Ninth Circuit with applying the law of Raich to the facts of OCBC. I suppose that, by raising the stakes, today’s order might make it somewhat more likely that the Court will review Raich, though others would know better than I whether this would be the case.
Of course, one should not make too much of this decision not to decide by the Ninth Circuit. But it does seem that the panel certainly did not rule out the possibility that the principles of Raich do indeed apply to OCBC–notwithstanding the factual differences betweeen the two cases–and we might expect them to be receptive to a ruling favorable to OCBC by Judge Breyer, who to date has consistently ruled against us. But first, we await with ‘bated breath the decision of the Justices of the Supreme Court.
Comments are closed.