United States v. McIntosh - 833 F.3d 1163 (9th Cir. 2016)

Rule:

To be clear, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016, Pub. L. No. 114-113, § 542, 129 Stat. 2242, 2332-33 (2015), does not provide immunity from prosecution for federal marijuana offenses.

Facts:

These cases are consolidated interlocutory appeals and petitions for writs of mandamus. All appellants have been indicted for various infractions of the Controlled Substances Act. They have moved to dismiss their indictments or to enjoin their prosecutions on the grounds that the Department of Justice (DOJ) is prohibited from spending funds to prosecute them. In the case of defendant Steve Mcintosh, five codefendants allegedly ran marijuana stores and indoor marijuana grow sites. They were indicted, as well as the other defendants, for conspiracy to manufacture, to possess with intent to distribute, and to distribute marijuana plants in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A). Plaintiff government sought forfeiture derived from such violations under 21 U.S.C. § 853.

Issue:

May the defendants avoid prosecution for various federal marijuana offenses on the basis of a congressional appropriations rider that prohibits the U.S. Department of Justice from spending funds to prevent states' implementation of their own medical marijuana laws?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

In this case the court, held that Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016, Pub. L. No. 114-113, § 542, 129 Stat. 2242, 2332-33 (2015), prohibits the DOJ from spending money on actions that prevent the Medical Marijuana States giving practical effect to their state laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana. At a minimum, § 542 prohibits DOJ from spending funds from relevant appropriations acts for the prosecution of individuals who engaged in conduct permitted by the State Medical Marijuana Laws and who fully complied with such laws.