Feature: Supreme Court Rejects Counties' Challenge to California's Medical Marijuana Law

The last serious challenge to California's medical marijuana law died an anticlimactic death Monday as the US Supreme Court refused to hear appeals from two California counties that rejected the law and argued it should be struck down as violating federal drug laws. The court rejected the appeals without comment.

San Diego and San Bernardino counties had challenged the legality of Proposition 215 and the 2004 Medical Marijuana Act implementing it, which required counties to issue identification cards to qualified patients. The two counties refused to issue the cards, arguing that to do so would place them in conflict with federal law. (Eight other California counties have also failed to issue ID cards, but did not join in the legal challenge.)

While medical marijuana patients are not required to have the state-issued cards, they are seen as a means of protecting patients, doctors, and providers from arbitrary arrest under state drug laws. Local activists, frustrated with the recalcitrant stands of their elected officials, threatened to sue San Diego County, but instead of responding to the demands of the citizenry, officials there and in San Bernardino County filed suit themselves, seeking a declaration that federal drug laws preempted California's medical marijuana laws.

The counties lost in California district court in San Diego and appealed to the state appeals courts. They lost there, too, with the California 4th District Court of Appeal ruling unanimously against them. "Congress does not have the authority to compel the states to direct their law enforcement to enforce federal laws," the appeals court opinion noted, ruling that the state medical marijuana law was not voided by federal drug laws.

The counties then went to the California Supreme Court, which refused to hear their appeal. Now, the US Supreme Court has followed suit.

This same US Supreme Court ruled in 2005 in Gonzalez v. Raich that the federal government did have authority over even the non-commercial personal use of medical marijuana, but it did not rule on whether state laws allowing for medical marijuana are void because they conflict with the federal Controlled Substances Act. It still hasn't, but its refusal to hear the counties appeal clears the way forward both in California and nationwide.

"No longer will local officials be able to hide behind federal law and resist upholding California's medical marijuana law," said Joe Elford, chief counsel for Americans for Safe Access (ASA), a national medical marijuana advocacy group, which represented patients in the county's lawsuit against the state. "The courts have made clear that federal law does not preempt California's medical marijuana law and that local officials must comply with that law."

"The Supreme Court's order marks a significant victory for medical marijuana patients and advocates nationwide," said Graham Boyd, director of the ACLU Drug Law Reform Project, which also represented San Diego patients in the case. "This case struck at the core of the contentious intersection between state and federal medical marijuana policy, and, once again, it is clear that state medical marijuana laws are fully valid. Coupled with the Department of Justice's recent pronouncements that the agency will respect state medical marijuana laws, the Court's order leaves ample room for states to move forward with enacting and implementing independent medical marijuana policies."

"There is no longer any question that California officials must comply with state medical marijuana laws, that they can't use federal law as an excuse to subvert the will of the voters and the legislature," said Daniel Abrahamson, director of legal affairs for the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA). "As a result, stonewalling by a handful of hold-out counties will end, and medical marijuana patients statewide will receive the protections they are entitled to."

"The Supreme Court and the lower courts in California have blown away the myth that federal law somehow prevents states from legalizing medical marijuana," said Marijuana Policy Project (MPP) executive director Rob Kampia. "Opponents can no longer hide behind federal law in order to excuse their war on medical marijuana patients."

DPA's California state director, Stephen Gutwillig, took it a bit further. "The US Supreme court is reaffirming a basic principle of our democracy that states can establish and enforce drug laws that don't conform to federal law," he said. "The Supreme Court's action sets the stage for California to end decades of wasteful and ineffective marijuana laws that ensnare tens of thousands of people every year. Federal prohibition is no obstacle to eliminating California's arcane pot laws."

"The court has flattened the last faint justification for counties refusing to issue ID cards to legally qualified medical marijuana patients," said California policy director Aaron Smith. "We expect all counties that have delayed issuing cards to start following the law immediately and stop putting patients at needless risk. It's time for San Diego and San Bernardino Counties to end their war on the sick and obey the law," Smith said. "And taxpayers should hold to account the irresponsible officials who wasted their tax dollars on frivolous litigation."

County supervisors in both counties signaled this week that even if they weren't prepared to follow the will of the voters, they will heed the direction of the courts. "The case is officially over," San Diego County Supervisor Pam Slater-Price told the San Diego Union-Tribune Tuesday. "It is incumbent on us now to proceed with issuing medical marijuana ID cards, after we hear from our staff on appropriate guidelines."

Slater-Price had joined supervisors Dianne Jacob and Bill Horn in voting not to issue ID cards and again to pursue the case to the US Supreme Court after it lost in the state courts. The other two were still grumbling.

"I am disappointed the court did not take our case, but I am respectful of the court's decision," said Jacob. "We were seeking a definitive ruling, in writing, that would resolve the conflict between state and federal law. In my opinion, there remains a gray area that will continue to pose challenges for law enforcement and users."

Horn said he would abide by court rulings, but complained that the high court refused to hear the case. "It's still an issue I wish they would have heard," he said.

Meanwhile, in San Bernardino County, Supervisor Josie Gonzales told a group of medical marijuana supporters she is ready to support the issuing of ID cards now. "I've long been a supporter of medical marijuana," she said.