Federal Raids Of State-Legal Marijuana Businesses Are Officially Illegal

A federal court in California just ruled that the Drug Enforcement Administration’s interpretation of a recent medical marijuana bill “defies language and logic,” “tortures the plain meaning of the statute” and is “at odds with fundamental notions of the rule of law.” The ruling has broad impact on the DEA’s ability to prosecute federal medical marijuana cases going forward.

At issue is the Rohrabacher-Farr amendment to last year’s government spending bill. The amendment lists the states that have medical marijuana laws and mandates that the Justice Department is barred from using federal funds to “prevent such States from implementing their own State laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana.” Pretty straightforward, right?

When the legislation was passed, advocates and lawmakers on both sides of the issue agreed that the bill basically prevented the DEA from going after medical marijuana dispensaries, provided that such dispensaries were acting in compliance with state law. The DEA, however, didn’t see it that way. In a leaked memo, the Justice Department contended that the amendment only prevents actions against actual states — not against the individuals or businesses that actually carry out marijuana laws. In their interpretation, the bill still allowed them to pursue criminal and civil actions against medical marijuana businesses and the patients who patronized them.

[The government is stifling medical marijuana research, major think tank declares]

The DoJ’s reading of the amendment infuriated its sponsors. They called for an investigation into the Department of Justice’s “tortuous twisting of the text” of the bill, saying it violated common sense. Yesterday, Judge Charles Breyer of the U.S. District Court in northern California agreed.

Breyer goes through the arguments against the DoJ’s case, referring to the floor debate as well as the plain language of the bill. But, “having no substantive response or evidence, the Government simply asserts that it ‘need not delve into legislative history here’ because the meaning of the statute is clearly in its favor,” Breyer writes. “The Court disagrees.” He called the DoJ’s interpretation of the amendment “counterintuitive and opportunistic.”