James v. City of Costa Mesa - 700 F.3d 394 (9th Cir. 2012)

Rule:

Congress has made clear that the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) defines "illegal drug use" by reference to federal, rather than state, law, and federal law does not authorize medical marijuana use. Therefore, medical marijuana use is not protected by the ADA. 

Facts:

The plaintiffs are severely disabled California residents. They alleged that "conventional medical services, drugs and medications" have not alleviated the pain caused by their impairments. Each of them has therefore "obtained a recommendation from a medical doctor" to use marijuana to treat her pain. This medical marijuana use is permissible under California law, but prohibited by the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA). The plaintiffs obtain medical marijuana through collectives located in Costa Mesa and Lake Forest, California. These cities, however, have taken steps to close marijuana dispensing facilities operating within their boundaries. Costa Mesa adopted an ordinance excluding medical marijuana dispensaries completely in 2005. Some marijuana dispensing facilities, including the Costa Mesa collectives, have apparently continued to operate despite the ordinance, but the plaintiffs alleged that Costa Mesa police have recently "raided operating marijuana collectives and detained collective members." Lake Forest has also allegedly raided medical marijuana collectives operating within city limits, and has brought a public nuisance action in state court seeking to close them.  Concerned about the possible shutdown of the collectives they rely on to obtain medical marijuana, the plaintiffs brought this action in federal district court, alleging that the cities' actions violate Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which prohibits discrimination in the provision of public services. District Judge Guilford sympathized with the plaintiffs, but denied their application for preliminary injunctive relief on the ground that the ADA does not protect against discrimination on the basis of marijuana use, even medical marijuana use supervised by a doctor in accordance with state law, unless that use is authorized by federal law.

Issue:

Was medical marijuana use protected by the ADA?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court agreed with the district court that Congress made clear that the ADA defined "illegal drug use" by reference to federal, rather than state, law, and federal law did not authorize the plaintiffs' medical marijuana use. The ADA did not protect medical marijuana users who claimed to face discrimination on the basis of their marijuana use. The term "individual with a disability" did not include an individual who was currently engaging in the illegal use of drugs, when the covered entity acted on the basis of such use. Plaintiffs' marijuana use did not fall within the supervised use exception under 42 U.S.C.S. § 12210(d)(1). The use exception contained a single exception covering all uses authorized by the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) or other provisions of federal law. Doctor-recommended marijuana use permitted by state law, but prohibited by federal law, was an illegal use of drugs for purposes of the ADA, and plaintiffs' federally proscribed medical marijuana use brought them within the ADA's illegal drug exclusion. That conclusion was not altered by recent congressional actions allowing the implementation of the District of Columbia's local medical marijuana initiative.