Major Court Cases (and Related Docs)


Conant v. Walters
USA. v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative and Jeffrey Jones
Gonzalez v. Raich

I. Conant v. Walters (formerly Conant v. McCaffrey)

A. Case Summary: When California passed its medical marijuana regulations in 1996 the US government threatened physicians who recommended marijuana with the loss of their license. Physicians and patients filed this class action lawsuit. The US District Court and the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found for the physicians and issued a Permanent Injunction, which permits physicians to discuss marijuana with their patients and to approve the use of marijuana in their medical treatment.

B. Main Case Documents

Document

Date
Link to Source Document
1. Plaintiff's Complaint
US District Court for the Northern District of California
1997
Jan. 14
 Full Text
(PDF)
2. Preliminary Injunction
US District Court for the Northern District of California
1997
Apr. 30
Full Text
(PDF)
3. Permanent Injunction
US District Court for the Northern District of California
2000
Sep. 7
Full Text
(PDF)
4. Brief for Appellees
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
2001
Aug. 31
Full Text
(PDF)
5. 3-0 Decision
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
(Appeal denied by US Supreme Court)
2002
Oct. 29
Full Text
(PDF)
 
C. Amicus Briefs
Pro medical marijuana Con medical marijuana
Filing Party Document Filing Party Document
1. American Public Health Association, American Medical Student Association, California Nurses Association,Lymphoma Foundation of America, Barbara M. Douglass, George Lee McMahon, Elvy Musikka, and Irvin Henry Rosenfeld [four of the seven Compassionate IND medical marijuana patients] Full Text (PDF) None available.
2. California Medical Association, Global Lawyers and Physicians, American Academy of Pain Medicine, Society of General Internal Medicine, et al. Full Text (PDF)  
3. California Academy of Family Physicians, Gay and Lesbian Medical Association, Marin Medical Society, and San Francisco Medical Society Full Text (PDF)  


II. USA v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative (OCBC) and Jeffrey Jones

A. Case Summary: Oakland Cannabis Buyer's Cooperative and its proprietor, Jeffrey Jones, distributed marijuana based on the theory that they could be each patient's "caregiver," and qualify as such under federal necessity law. The US government disagreed, and filed a lawsuit to cease OCBC operations.

B. Main Case Documents
Document
Date
Link to Source Document
1. Defendants Answers to Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial
US District Court for the District of Northern California
1998
June 18
Full Text (PDF)
2. Appellants' (OCBC) Opening Brief
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
1998
Nov. 13
Full Text (PDF)
3. Appelles' (US) Reply to Brief of Amicus Curiae by the City of Oakland
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
1999
Jan. 22
Full Text (PDF)
4. Ruling
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
1999
Sep. 13
Full Text (PDF)
5. PETITIONER; On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
US Supreme Court
2000
July 17
Full Text (PDF)
6. Reply Brief for Appellant United States of America
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
2000
Oct. 9
 Full Text(PDF)
7. Reply Brief for Petitioner
US Supreme Court
2000
Nov.
Full Text (PDF)
8. Brief for the Petitioner on a Writ of Certiorari to the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
US Supreme Court
2001
Jan.
Full Text (PDF)
9. Brief for the Respondents
US Supreme Court
2001
Feb. 20
Full Text (PDF)
10. Transcript of Oral Arguments
US Supreme Court
2001
Mar. 28
Full Text (PDF)
11. Opinion of the Court - 8-0 for USA.
US Supreme Court
2001
May 14
Full Text (PDF)
12. Syllabus of the Opinion
US Supreme Court
2001
May 14
Full Text (PDF)
13. Concurrence of the Opinion
US Supreme Court
2001
May 14
Full Text (PDF)

 

C. Amicus Briefs
Pro medical marijuana Con medical marijuana
Filing Party Document Filing Party Document
1. City of Oakland Full Text (PDF) 1. US Health and Human Services Recommendation, to Continue listing cannabis on Schedule I
US Department of Health and Human Services
Full Text (PDF)
2. State of California Full Text (PDF)  
3. California Medical Association and National Pain Foundation Full Text (PDF)  
4. American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Full Text (PDF)  
5. American Public Health Association, California Nurses Association, Lymphoma Foundation of American, et al. Full Text (PDF)  
6. Ethan Russo, M.D. and Rick Doblin, Ph.D. Full Text (PDF)  

III. Gonzalez v. Raich
(also known as Ashcroft, et al. v. Raich, et al. and Raich v. Ashcroft )

A. Case Summary: Two medical marijuana patients, Angel McClary Raich and Diane Monson, and two caregivers, John Doe Number One and John Doe Number Two, filed a complaint and motion for preliminary injunction against US Attorney General John Ashcroft and former DEA Administrator Asa Hutchinson.

The plaintiffs asked Judge Martin J. Jenkins to issue a Preliminary Injunction during the pendency of the action, and a Declaratory Relief and a Permanent Injunction enjoining the defendants from arresting or prosecuting the plaintiffs, seizing their medical cannabis, forfeiting their property, or seeking civil or administrative sanctions against them for their activities

The complaint stated that John Ashcroft and Asa Hutchinson are "unconstitutionally exceeding their authority by embarking on a campaign of seizing or forfeiting privately-grown intrastate medical cannabis from California patients and caregivers, arresting or prosecuting such patients, mounting paramilitary raids against patients and caregivers, harassing patients and caregivers, and taking other civil or administrative actions against them." clinics or clubs that "sell" medical marijuana (and are not patient co-ops), will be more vulnerable to federal arrest and seizure. The US Drug Enforcement Administration and other law enforcement agencies may feel bolstered by the decision, and use it to "crack down" on medical marijuana centers, cultivations, patients, and their caregivers.

  • Question Presented to the Court:

    "Whether the [US] Controlled Substances Act, 21 USC. 801 et seq., exceeds Congress' power under the Commerce Clause as applied to the intrastate cultivation and possession of marijuana for purported personal 'medicinal' use or to the distribution of marijuana without charge for such use."

  •  
    B. Main Case Documents
     

    Document

    Date
    Link to Source Document
    1. Complaint for Declaratory Relief and for Prelimninary and Permanent Injunctive Relief
    US District Court for the District of Northern California
    2002
    Oct. 9
    Full Text (PDF)
    2. Declaration of Angel McClary Raich
    US District Court for the District of Northern California
    2002
    Oct. 25
    Full Text (PDF)
    3. Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction
    US District Court for the District of Northern California
    2002
    Oct. 29
    Full Text (PDF)
    4. Defendants' Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction
    US District Court for the District of Northern California
    2002
    Dec. 10
    Full Text (PDF)
    5. Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction
    US District Court for the District of Northern California
    2002
    Nov. 26
    Full Text (PDF)
    6. Transcript of Proceedings
    US District Court for the District of Northern California
    2002
    Dec. 17
    Full Text (PDF)
    7. Order from District Court Judge Martin J. Jenkins
    US District Court for the District of Northern California
    2003
    Mar. 5
    Full Text (PDF)
    8. Brief for Appellees
    US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
    2003
    May 28
    Full Text (PDF)
    9. Appellants' Reply Brief
    US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
    2003
    June 11
    Full Text (PDF)
    10. Opinion from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals 2003
    Dec. 16
    Full Text (PDF)
    11. Petition by US government for a Writ of Certiorari
    US Supreme Court
    2004
    Apr. 20
    Full Text (PDF)
    12. Respondents' Brief in Opposition
    US Supreme Court
    2004
    June 7
    Full Text (PDF)
    13. Reply Brief for the Petitioners
    US Supreme Court
    2004
    June 10
    Full Text (PDF)
    14. Merits Brief for the Petitioners
    US Supreme Court
    2003
    Aug. 11
    Full Text (PDF)
    15. Merits Brief for the Respondents
    US Supreme Court
    2004
    Oct. 13
    Full Text (PDF)
    16. Petitioners Reply brief on the Merits
    US Supreme Court
    2004
    Nov. 17
    Full Text (PDF)
    17. Supreme Court Transcript
    US Supreme Court
    2004
    Nov. 29
    Full Text (PDF)
    18. US Supreme Court Decision - 6-3 for US government
    2005
    June 6
    Full Text (PDF)

     

    C. Amicus Briefs
    Pro medical marijuana Con medical marijuana
    Filing Party Document Filing Party Document
    1. California Attorney General Bill Lockyer with the State of California's, County of Alameda's, and City of Oakland's brief Full Text (PDF) 1. Robert L. Dupont, M.D.; Peter B. Bensinger and Herbert Kleber, M.D. Full Text (PDF)
    2. California Medical Association and the California Nurses Association
    Full Text (PDF) 2. Drug Free America Foundation, Inc.; the Drug Free Schools Coalition; Save Our Society From Drugs; the International Scientific and Medical Forum on Drug Abuse; the Institute on Global Drug Policy; and Students Taking Action Not Drugs, et al. Full Text (PDF)
    2. Constitutional Law Scholars
    Full Text (PDF) 3. Mark E. Souder; US Representative, Cass Ballenger; US Representative, Dan Burton; US Representative, Katherine Harris; US Representative, Ernest J. Istook, Jr.; US Representative, Jack Kingston; US Representative, and US Representative, Doug Ose Full Text (PDF)
    4. State of California; Washington; and State of Maryland Full Text (PDF)  
    5. State of Alabama; State of Louisiana; and State of Mississippi Full Text (PDF)  
    6. Lymphoma Foundation of America; HIV Medicine Association of the Infectious Diseases Society of America; American Medical Students Association; Dr. Barbara Roberts; and Irvin Rosenfeld Full Text (PDF)  
    7. Leukemia and Lymphoma Society; Pain Relief Network; California Medical Association; AIDS Action Council; Compassion in Dying Federation; End-of-Life Choices; National Women's Health Network; Global Lawyers and Physicians; and AUTONOMY, Inc. Full Text (PDF)  
    8. California Nurses Association and DKT Liberty Project Full Text (PDF)  
    9. Marijuana Policy Project and Rick Doblin, PhD Full Text (PDF)  
    10. Cato Institute Full Text (PDF)  
    11. National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML); The NORML Foundation; the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers; Washington Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers; and Oregon Criminal Defense Lawyers Association Full Text (PDF)  
    12. Reason Foundation Full Text (PDF)  
    13. Institute for Justice Full Text (PDF)