SmokeDog420
New Member
Citing a precedent set late last year in an Oakland case, a federal judge in San Jose on Wednesday forbade any further federal raids on a Santa Cruz-area medical marijuana cooperative, letting the group resume cultivation while its lawsuit against the government proceeds.
It's a landmark ruling, said attorneys for the Wo/Men's Alliance for Medical Marijuana, or WAMM, because it is the first time a federal trial court judge has enjoined law enforcement from enforcing the federal ban on marijuana cultivation, possession and use.
Justice Department attorney Mark Quinlivan wouldn't comment Wednesday on U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel's ruling, which granted WAMM's request for a preliminary injunction and denied the government's motion to dismiss WAMM's lawsuit.
But the government isn't silent on the issue. Just Tuesday, it filed a petition asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals opinion on which Fogel based his ruling.
"Mike and I are elated -- this is an incredible victory for us," said Val Corral, who with her husband founded the Wo/Men's Alliance for Medical Marijuana. "We are so pleased to be able to begin our garden again."
Despite the California law allowing medical marijuana use, Drug Enforcement Administration agents raided WAMM on Sept. 24, 2002, confiscating 167 plants.
The Corrals were taken into custody but soon were released and no charges were filed. WAMM, seven of its member patients and the city and county of Santa Cruz sued the government a year ago Friday, challenging the Justice Department's authority to conduct such raids.
Fogel in August denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, which would have protected the collective from future raids while the case was pending, and granted the government's motion to dismiss the case.
But the plaintiffs early this year asked Fogel to reconsider his ruling in light of the 9th Circuit appeals court's December decision in the Oakland-based case of Raich v. Ashcroft.
The appeals court had ruled that Attorney General John Ashcroft and the Bush administration had no jurisdiction over non-commercial medical marijuana activity happening entirely within California.
Under the Constitution's commerce clause, enforcement of federal law -- including the Controlled Substance Act's ban on marijuana -- requires activity across state lines.
The 9th Circuit ruling had specifically criticized Fogel's initial WAMM decision, stating that he'd erred in its analysis. The 15-page ruling Fogel issued Wednesday noted "the change in the law of this circuit requires this court to reconsider its decision denying plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction.
"Plaintiffs have demonstrated irreparable injury and a likelihood of success with respect to their argument that, on the facts of this case and the controlling case law in this circuit, the CSA (Controlled Substances Act) as applied to plaintiffs is an unconstitutional exercise of Congress' Commerce Clause power," he wrote.
Neha Shah Nissen, WAMM's pro bono attorney, said the ruling means "the federal government can no longer ignore the will of the people of the state of California and the city and county of Santa Cruz to protect the health and welfare of terminally and chronically ill individuals.
"It is a landmark decision, a long time coming," she said.
Santa Cruz city councilwoman Emily Reilly said Wednesday she feels "an extraordinary joy" at Fogel's ruling. "We're being shown that the courts have recognized this is not about supporting the recreational use of illegal drugs. This is about showing compassion for terminally ill people."
Source: Daily Review, The (CA)
Author: Josh Richman, Staff Writers
Published: Thursday, April 22, 2004
Copyright: 2004 MediaNews Group, Inc.
Contact: revlet@angnewspapers.com
Website: https://www.dailyreviewonline.com/
It's a landmark ruling, said attorneys for the Wo/Men's Alliance for Medical Marijuana, or WAMM, because it is the first time a federal trial court judge has enjoined law enforcement from enforcing the federal ban on marijuana cultivation, possession and use.
Justice Department attorney Mark Quinlivan wouldn't comment Wednesday on U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel's ruling, which granted WAMM's request for a preliminary injunction and denied the government's motion to dismiss WAMM's lawsuit.
But the government isn't silent on the issue. Just Tuesday, it filed a petition asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals opinion on which Fogel based his ruling.
"Mike and I are elated -- this is an incredible victory for us," said Val Corral, who with her husband founded the Wo/Men's Alliance for Medical Marijuana. "We are so pleased to be able to begin our garden again."
Despite the California law allowing medical marijuana use, Drug Enforcement Administration agents raided WAMM on Sept. 24, 2002, confiscating 167 plants.
The Corrals were taken into custody but soon were released and no charges were filed. WAMM, seven of its member patients and the city and county of Santa Cruz sued the government a year ago Friday, challenging the Justice Department's authority to conduct such raids.
Fogel in August denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, which would have protected the collective from future raids while the case was pending, and granted the government's motion to dismiss the case.
But the plaintiffs early this year asked Fogel to reconsider his ruling in light of the 9th Circuit appeals court's December decision in the Oakland-based case of Raich v. Ashcroft.
The appeals court had ruled that Attorney General John Ashcroft and the Bush administration had no jurisdiction over non-commercial medical marijuana activity happening entirely within California.
Under the Constitution's commerce clause, enforcement of federal law -- including the Controlled Substance Act's ban on marijuana -- requires activity across state lines.
The 9th Circuit ruling had specifically criticized Fogel's initial WAMM decision, stating that he'd erred in its analysis. The 15-page ruling Fogel issued Wednesday noted "the change in the law of this circuit requires this court to reconsider its decision denying plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction.
"Plaintiffs have demonstrated irreparable injury and a likelihood of success with respect to their argument that, on the facts of this case and the controlling case law in this circuit, the CSA (Controlled Substances Act) as applied to plaintiffs is an unconstitutional exercise of Congress' Commerce Clause power," he wrote.
Neha Shah Nissen, WAMM's pro bono attorney, said the ruling means "the federal government can no longer ignore the will of the people of the state of California and the city and county of Santa Cruz to protect the health and welfare of terminally and chronically ill individuals.
"It is a landmark decision, a long time coming," she said.
Santa Cruz city councilwoman Emily Reilly said Wednesday she feels "an extraordinary joy" at Fogel's ruling. "We're being shown that the courts have recognized this is not about supporting the recreational use of illegal drugs. This is about showing compassion for terminally ill people."
Source: Daily Review, The (CA)
Author: Josh Richman, Staff Writers
Published: Thursday, April 22, 2004
Copyright: 2004 MediaNews Group, Inc.
Contact: revlet@angnewspapers.com
Website: https://www.dailyreviewonline.com/
