N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
LANC E C ARLSON,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. C HAR TER

C OM M UNIC ATIONS, LLC , De fe nda n t-Appe l le e . No. 17-35917 D.C . No. 6:16-c v-00086-SEH
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of M o nta

na Sam E. Ha ddon, Distric t

Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Nove m

be r 9, 2018 ** Portla nd, Ore gon B e fore : TALLM AN a

n d IKUTA, C irc uit Judge s , a n d B OUGH, *** Distric t Judge
. Lanc e C arlson a

p p e a l s the distric t c ourt’ s dism issa l of his a c tion a nd its orde r re fusing to c e rtify

a que stion to the

M onta na Supre m e C o urt. W e a ffirm
.



# F IL ED NOV 19 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).

* * * The Honora

ble Ste phe n R
. B ough, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the W e ste rn Distric t of M issouri, sitting by de signa tion.B e c a

use se c tions 50-46-320(4)(b) a nd (5) of the M onta

na M arijua na Ac t (M M A ) state that the M M A doe s not pre ve n t e m ploy e rs from prohibiting the ir
e m ploy e e s from using m arijua n a or a uthoriz e wrongful te rm ination or disc rim ination suits a

ga inst e m p loy e rs, M ont. C ode Ann. §§ 50-46-320(4)(b), (5), the M M A doe s not pre c lude a fe de ra l c ontra c tor from

c om ply ing with a ll the
re quire m e nts of theDrug-Fre e W orkpla c e Ac t (DFW A), 41 U.S.C
. § 8102. The re fore , the M M A is not pre e m pte d by the DFW A. Se e PLIVA, Inc . v . Me nsing , 564 U.S. 604, 620 (2011); C rosby v . N at’l Fore ign Trade

C ounc il , 530 U.S. 363, 373 (2000). Ne ve rthe le s s, se c t ions 50-46-320(4)(b) a nd (5) do not viola

te the M onta

na
c onstitution; ra

the r, the y survive ra tiona l ba sis re vie wbe c a u se the y are ra tiona lly
re late d to M o nta

na ’ s le gitim a te sta

te inte re st in providing “ c are ful re gula tion of
a c c e ss to a

n othe rwise ille ga l substa nc e for lim ite d use by

pe rsons for whom

the re is little or no othe r e ffe c tive a lte rnative ” while “ avoid[ing] e nta ngle m e nt with fe de ra l la w.” Mont. C

annabis Indus. Ass’n v

. State , 368 P.3d 1131, 1143 (M ont. 2016). Although a

c ongre ssiona l a

ppropria tions ride r c urre ntly

re stric ts the De pa rtm e nt of Justic e from

spe nding funds to prose c ute individuals who c om ply with sta te m arijua na la ws, se e Unite d State

s v . Mc Intosh , 833 F.3d 1163, 1169,

21179 (9th C ir. 2016), this tem pora ry rule doe s not unde rc ut M onta na ’ s le gitim a te sta te inte re s ts. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in de ny ing C a rlson’ s re que st to
c e rtify the que stion whe t

he r se c tions 50-46-320(4)(b) a nd (5) a re c o nstitutiona

l to the M onta

na Supre m e C ourt, be c a

use it is not a

n unc le ar que stion of sta

te la w
a ppropria te for c e rtific a tion. Se e C e nturion Propertie

s III, LLC v . C hi. Title Ins. C o. , 793 F.3d 1087, 1089 (9th C ir. 2015). AFFIRM E D.

3