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![]() |
2. | Preliminary Injunction US District Court for the Northern District of California |
1997 Apr. 30 |
Full Text![]() |
3. | Permanent Injunction US District Court for the Northern District of California |
2000 Sep. 7 |
Full Text![]() |
4. | Brief for Appellees US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit |
2001 Aug. 31 |
Full Text![]() |
5. | 3-0 Decision US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Appeal denied by US Supreme Court) |
2002 Oct. 29 |
Full Text![]() |
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![]() |
None available. | |
2. California Medical Association, Global Lawyers and Physicians, American Academy of Pain Medicine, Society of General Internal Medicine, et al. | Full Text![]() |
||
3. California Academy of Family Physicians, Gay and Lesbian Medical Association, Marin Medical Society, and San Francisco Medical Society | Full Text![]() |
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![]() |
2. | Appellants’ (OCBC) Opening Brief US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit |
1998 Nov. 13 |
Full Text![]() |
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![]() |
4. | Ruling US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit |
1999 Sep. 13 |
Full Text![]() |
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![]() |
6. | Reply Brief for Appellant United States of America US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit |
2000 Oct. 9 |
Full Text![]() |
7. | Reply Brief for Petitioner US Supreme Court |
2000 Nov. |
Full Text![]() |
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![]() |
9. | Brief for the Respondents US Supreme Court |
2001 Feb. 20 |
Full Text![]() |
10. | Transcript of Oral Arguments US Supreme Court |
2001 Mar. 28 |
Full Text![]() |
11. | Opinion of the Court – 8-0 for USA. US Supreme Court |
2001 May 14 |
Full Text![]() |
12. | Syllabus of the Opinion US Supreme Court |
2001 May 14 |
Full Text![]() |
13. | Concurrence of the Opinion US Supreme Court |
2001 May 14 |
Full Text![]() |
Pro medical marijuana | Con medical marijuana | ||
Filing Party | Document | Filing Party | Document |
1. City of Oakland | Full Text![]() |
1. US Health and Human Services Recommendation, to Continue listing cannabis on Schedule I US Department of Health and Human Services |
Full Text![]() |
2. State of California | Full Text![]() |
||
3. California Medical Association and National Pain Foundation | Full Text![]() |
||
4. American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) | Full Text![]() |
||
5. American Public Health Association, California Nurses Association, Lymphoma Foundation of American, et al. | Full Text![]() |
||
6. Ethan Russo, M.D. and Rick Doblin, Ph.D. | Full Text![]() |
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![]() |
2. | Declaration of Angel McClary Raich US District Court for the District of Northern California |
2002 Oct. 25 |
Full Text![]() |
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![]() |
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![]() |
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![]() |
6. | Transcript of Proceedings US District Court for the District of Northern California |
2002 Dec. 17 |
Full Text![]() |
7. | Order from District Court Judge Martin J. Jenkins US District Court for the District of Northern California |
2003 Mar. 5 |
Full Text![]() |
8. | Brief for Appellees US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit |
2003 May 28 |
Full Text![]() |
9. | Appellants’ Reply Brief US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit |
2003 June 11 |
Full Text![]() |
10. | Opinion from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals | 2003 Dec. 16 |
Full Text![]() |
11. | Petition by US government for a Writ of Certiorari US Supreme Court |
2004 Apr. 20 |
Full Text![]() |
12. | Respondents’ Brief in Opposition US Supreme Court |
2004 June 7 |
Full Text![]() |
13. | Reply Brief for the Petitioners US Supreme Court |
2004 June 10 |
Full Text![]() |
14. | Merits Brief for the Petitioners US Supreme Court |
2003 Aug. 11 |
Full Text![]() |
15. | Merits Brief for the Respondents US Supreme Court |
2004 Oct. 13 |
Full Text![]() |
16. | Petitioners Reply brief on the Merits US Supreme Court |
2004 Nov. 17 |
Full Text![]() |
17. | Supreme Court Transcript US Supreme Court |
2004 Nov. 29 |
Full Text![]() |
18. | US Supreme Court Decision – 6-3 for US government |
2005 June 6 |
Full Text![]() |
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![]() |
1. Robert L. Dupont, M.D.; Peter B. Bensinger and Herbert Kleber, M.D. | Full Text![]() |
2. California Medical Association and the California Nurses Association |
Full Text![]() |
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![]() |
2. Constitutional Law Scholars |
Full Text![]() |
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![]() |
4. State of California; Washington; and State of Maryland | Full Text![]() |
||
5. State of Alabama; State of Louisiana; and State of Mississippi | Full Text![]() |
||
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![]() |
||
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![]() |
||
8. California Nurses Association and DKT Liberty Project | Full Text![]() |
||
9. Marijuana Policy Project and Rick Doblin, PhD | Full Text![]() |
||
10. Cato Institute | Full Text![]() |
||
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![]() |
||
12. Reason Foundation | Full Text![]() |
||
13. Institute for Justice | Full Text![]() |