Marijuana prohibitionists in Congress say District of Columbia officials may face years in prison for allowing legalization of the drug in the nation’s capital - but experts say it’s highly unlikely Mayor Muriel Bowser and her colleagues are headed to the slammer.

At issue is the disputed meaning of an amendment that passed Congress in December prohibiting the spending of funds to "enact" laws that legalize possession of marijuana for recreational use. Under one interpretation, district leaders are eligible for two years in prison. Under the other, they are not.

Though the amendment aimed to scuttle a ballot initiative approved by 70 percent of city voters in November, district officials say legalization was enacted when voters approved it, meaning it could legally take effect following a mandatory congressional review period.

Anti-pot Republicans in Congress, most notably Reps. Andy Harris of Maryland and Jason Chaffetz of Utah, stridently disagree with district officials’ interpretation and allege they are enacting the law and therefore violating the Antideficiency Act.

"Those people ought to be very afraid because the penalties are severe," Harris, the amendment's author, said Wednesday. “The Antideficiency Act is clear. It has two years’ jail time and loss of a job, as well as penalties. You cannot violate the clear intent of Congress in an appropriations measure.”

Chaffetz, the new chairman of the House oversight committee, warned Bowser in a Tuesday letter that implementing legalization would be a "knowing and willful" violation of the act, making officials eligible for criminal prosecution.

District leaders ignored the threats and announced the voter-approved reform took effect Thursday, allowing possession of 2 ounces of the drug and at-home growing of six plants. The initiative does not allow for city-regulated stores, and all agree the spending prohibition prevents further reform.

The relatively obscure Antideficiency Act prohibits spending of un-appropriated funds and carries up to two years in prison and a $5,000 fine for violators. There’s never been a criminal conviction for violating the act and it’s highly unlikely district officials would be the first, experts say.

“It’s very clear there’s some gamesmanship going on here by the D.C. city government, but I'm not sure the gamesmanship rises to the level of a violation of the Antideficiency Act,” says Cully Stimson, a senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation.

Stimson formerly worked in the office of the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, which would prosecute city officials.

“This is not one where you lick your lips and rub your hands together and say, 'This is an awesome case,'” he says. “It’s gonna die an early death if it even has a life as a legal matter.“

Stimson says city officials are “clearly violating the spirit of the congressional act, but even if they’re violating the law it would be hard to prove it. And even if they could prove it by some marginal expenditure - say 10 cents to make copies - no prosecutor worth their salt is going to waste their time.”

Eric E. Sterling, counsel to the House Judiciary Committee from 1979 until 1989, says “it’s extremely unlikely the U.S. Attorney is going to attempt to prosecute the mayor, the city council chairman and the chief of police for enforcing local law. “

Sterling points out the appropriations rider did not prohibit spending money to "carry out" the law - wording used in Harris' amendment as originally introduced - leaving room for city officials to argue their position is correct.

“It’s clear the Congress knows how to write a restriction,” he says. “The common meaning of ‘enact’ is the action of passing a law.”

Dan Riffle, director of federal policies at the pro-legalization Marijuana Policy Project, agrees. “It’s obviously meaningful that legislators decided to remove the 'or carry out' language between the time it was approved in committee and the time it became law," he says.

Sterling, now affiliated with the advocacy group Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, says even if the U.S. Attorney decides the law was violated and a conviction is possible, officials can demand a jury trial, with members of the jury pulled from constituents who voted for legalization.

Sterling says it’s more likely the House oversight committee will try to pick a fight with local officials over paperwork related to implementation of the law, and perhaps try to hold officials in criminal contempt - though there, too, the Department of Justice could block enforcement.

Editorial Cartoons on Marijuana View All 15 Images

“You can’t ignore the political appearances here,” he adds. “Does the Republican leadership begin to signal, ‘This doesn’t look good?’”

David Kopel, who teaches at the Denver University Sturm College of Law, says the Antideficiency Act often is flouted and the Department of Justice regularly shows no interest in bringing charges.

“There is a long history of executive branch shenanigans in operating huge parts of the federal government under the 'emergency' exception to the [act] when there is a funding lapse," Kopel says. “It would be very surprising to see an ADA prosecution under any circumstances, and especially in the D.C. situation, which involves a law enacted by the people of D.C."

The Governmental Accountability Office keeps tabs on annual violations of the act. In fiscal year 2013 there were 10 reported violations, none of them deemed knowing and willful, which could trigger criminal prosecution.

Timothy Westmoreland, a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center, says disagreement over the meaning of the budget amendment likely means district officials are not willfully violating the Antideficiency Act.

“As best I can tell, the only action that even the most expansive reading of the word ‘enacting’ would include would be the act of transmitting the referendum to the Congress,” he says. “Again, using the most expansive reading, that would probably be the postage costs, the copying costs and a pro-rata portion of the salary costs of people involved."

“That leads to the next question: Were these expenses paid with funds contained with the [spending bill] itself? If not, there’s no violation, since the prohibition is only about those funds, not other funds that D.C. may have from other sources,” he says.

Westmoreland says even if some funds used to transmit the initiative to Congress for review derived from the spending bill, the general practice for violations of the Antideficiency Act is “a required reporting to the GAO and administrative remedies to correct the expenditures.”

If the dispute ever heads to court, he adds, the budget rider may be interpreted as an implied amendment to the Home Rule Act of 1973, which mandates the transmission of district legislation to Congress. Courts generally take a dim view of such measures, he says.

Further, Westmoreland adds, “in interpreting criminal laws, courts have a general standard that, if the statute is ambiguous, it should be interpreted in a manner favorable to the defendant.”

Chaffetz and Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., chairman of an oversight subcommittee, are demanding by March 10 a list of district employees who participated in enacting the initiative, the amount of funds spent on enactment and all communications related to the matter.

Advocates for local autonomy and pot reform, meanwhile, are fired up in defense of legalization in the district, which with local democracy inhibited by congressional oversight faces unique challenges not seen in Alaska, Colorado, Oregon and Washington - where voters also passed laws legalizing the drug.

"Punishing elected officials for not punishing adults for using marijuana is insane," says Marijuana Policy Project spokesman Mason Tvert. "It’s almost as if these guys get off on using the criminal justice system for anything related to marijuana."

Though most experts say it's unlikely local officials will face prosecution, Texas A&M University law professor Frank Snyder says it's hard to predict anything with certainty.