Document: 532 U.S. 483121 S.Ct. 1711149 L.Ed.2d 722 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of United States Reports. Readers are requested notify Reporter Decisions, Supreme Court States, Washington, D. C. 20543, any typographical or other errors, order that corrections may be made goes press.UNITED STATES, PETITIONERv.OAKLAND CANNABIS BUYERS' COOPERATIVE and JEFFREY JONES No. 00-151. Argued March 28, 2001 Decided May 14, Syllabus Respondent Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative was organized distribute marijuana qualified patients for medical purposes. The sued enjoin its executive director, also a respondent (together, Cooperative), under Controlled Substances Act. argued Cooperative's activities violated Act's prohibitions on distributing, manufacturing, possessing with intent manufacture controlled substance. District enjoined activities, but continued marijuana. found contempt, rejecting defense distributions were medically necessary. court later rejected motion modify injunction permit necessary distributions. appealed, Ninth Circuit reversed remanded ruling injunction. According Circuit, necessity legally cognizable likely applicable circumstances, mistakenly believed it had no discretion issue an more limited scope than Act, should have weighed public interest considered factors such as serious harm depriving deciding whether Held: 1. There exception manufacturing distributing Pp. 5-11. (a) Because Act classifies schedule I substance, provides only one express drug: Government-approved research projects. contention common-law written into rejected. open question federal courts ever authority recognize not provided by statute. But need answered resolve presented here, terms leave doubt unavailable. 5-7. (b) Under conception legal necessity, cannot succeed when legislature itself has determination values. Here, reflects benefits worthy (other research). Whereas drugs can dispensed prescribed use, see 21 829, same true marijuana, which "no currently accepted medial use" at all, 811. conclusion supported structure divides five schedules, depending part drug then imposes restrictions according been placed. Attorney General authorized include I, most restrictive schedule, if use. errs arguing that, because Congress, instead General, placed distributed statute treats all alike, there reason why Congress fewer controls those there. Also argument particular patient class even achieved general acceptance treatment. It clear from text determined granted drugs. expressly contemplates many useful purpose, 801(1), includes use unwilling view omission accident unable, event, override legislative manifest Finally, canon constitutional avoidance application statutory ambiguity. 7-11. 2. equity traditionally possess fashioning relief does serve basis affirming this case. To sure, district properly acting unless clearly otherwise. mere fact suggest court, evaluating motion, could consider might relate parties' conveniences, including needs. Equity ignore Congress' judgment expressed legislation. Their choice means enforcement chosen over another permissible means, preferable all. extent considers how affected selection mechanisms. covers who what termed precludes consideration evidence deemed relevant. 11-15. 190 F.3d 1109, remanded. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT APPEALS FOR NINTH CIRCUIT Thomas, J., delivered Court, Rehnquist, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, JJ., joined. Stevens, filed concurring judgment, Souter Ginsburg, Breyer, took decision Opinion Justice Thomas Court. 1 84 Stat. 1242, U.S.C. 801 et seq., prohibits distribution various drugs, In case, we must decide these prohibitions. We hold not. 2 * November 1996, California voters enacted initiative measure entitled Compassionate Use 1996. Attempting "[t]o ensure seriously ill Californians right obtain purposes," Cal. Health & Safety Code Ann. 11362.5 (West Supp. 2001), creates laws prohibiting possession cultivation These longer apply his primary caregiver possesses cultivates patient's purposes upon recommendation approval physician. Ibid. wake voter initiative, several groups "medical cannabis dispensaries" meet needs patients. v. Cultivators Club, 5 F. 2d 1086, 1092 (ND 1998). groups. 3 not-for-profit organization operates downtown Oakland. A physician serves registered nurses staff during business hours. become member, provide statement treating assenting therapy submit screening interview. If receives identification card entitling him Cooperative. 4 January 1998, Jeffrey Jones Northern California. Seeking marijuana,1 law, they violate law. Specifically, Government 841(a). Concluding established probability success merits, App. Pet. Cert. 39a-40a, 2d, 1105. did appeal openly numerous persons, 21a-23a. terminate violations, initiated contempt proceedings. defense, contended Marijuana drug, Cooperative, alleviate severe pain debilitating symptoms Id., 29a. however, after determining insufficient each recipient actual danger imminent without drug. 29a-32a. and, Government's request, modified empower Marshal seize premises. 37a. Although recognizing "human suffering" result, reasoned court's "equitable powers [do] law." Three days later, summarily 6 appealed both denial modify. Before Appeals decided voluntarily purged promising would comply initial Consequently, moot. 1112-1113 (1999). 7 injunction, live controversy appealable 28 1292(a)(1). Reaching merits issue, Appeals, "legally defense" circumstances. F.3d, 1114. Moreover, reasoned, erroneously "believed itself." 1114-1115. Because, retain "broad equitable discretion" fashion injunctive relief, have, "public interest" Remanding instructed "the criteria exemption, set forth modification order." 1115. Following instructions, incorporate defense.2 8 petitioned certiorari review Appeals' violations raises significant questions ability enforce Nation's laws, certiorari. 531 1010 (2000). II 9 "[e]xcept subchapter, shall unlawful person knowingly intentionally ... manufacture, distribute, dispense, substance." 841(a)(1). turn, establishes exceptions. For (and classified "schedule I" substances), exception, available projects, 823(f). Not conducting project, cannot, indeed not, claim exemption. 10 contends, notwithstanding apparently absolute language 841(a), additional, implied exceptions, necessity. common read disagree. 11 As matter, note "traditionally covered situation where physical forces beyond actor's control rendered illegal conduct lesser two evils." Bailey, 444 394, 410 (1980). Even somewhat controversial. See, e.g., Queen Dudley Stephens, 14 Q. B. 273 (1884). And our system, crimes defined rather Hudson, Cranch 32, 34 (1812), especially so. stated: "Whether, policy exemption created judicial inference." Rutherford, 442 544, 559 (1979). Nonetheless, discussed possibility altogether it. supra, 415.3 12 decide, presented, odds statute, explicitly abrogate defense.4 provisions 13 principle clear: "determination values." W. LaFave A. Scott, Substantive Criminal Law 5.4, p. 629 (1986). case (outside confines project). some 829 Indeed, supports conclusion. substance Schedule schedule.5 "has treatment States," high potential abuse," "a lack safety supervision." 812(b)(1)(A)-(C). put 15 points out, place I. there, required find lacks persuaded distinction significance inquiry. logic, places whereas Nothing suggests tiers narcotics, tier readily other. On contrary, consistently alike. 823(a) (providing register applicant 823(b) 823(f) procedures becoming government-approved project), 826 (establishing production quotas drugs). offers convincing explanation schedule. argues placing "wishe[d] assert level [Controlled Act]." Brief Respondents 24. controls, treated less restrictively 16 further generally-whether General-can necessary, use." yet nonetheless decline parse manner. exception. "have legitimate purpose maintain health welfare American people," Unwilling accident, unable event reject argument.6 17 contends construe avoid difficult questions. particular, asserts shorn exceeds Commerce Clause powers, violates substantive due process rights patients, offends fundamental liberties people Fifth, Ninth, Tenth Amendments. acknowledges, absence bear do guidance principle. Nor underlying issues today. address claims, so first instance. 18 reasons, marijuana.7 erred held defense." remand III 19 forecloses alternative ground Appeals. reminds us, arises correct tailor account irrespective sustain below, goes, reaffirm courts, exercise their jurisdiction, based weighing interest.8 20 whose invoked (in restriction), concerning exercising discretion. equity, "several hundred years," enjoyed "sound "necessities relief. Hecht Co. Bowles, 321 321, 329-330 (1944). See id., 329 ("The essence jurisdiction power Chancellor mould decree necessities Flexibility rigidity distinguished it"); Weinberger Romero-Barcelo, 456 305, 312 (1982) ("In sound discretion, pay regard consequences employing extraordinary remedy injunction"). Such displaced "clear valid command." Porter Warner Holding Co., 328 395, 398 (1946). 313 ("Of course, intervene guide courts' lightly assume intended depart principles"). 22 vests 882(a). "grant [equitable relief] hardly duty circumstances," Hecht, (emphasis omitted). Court's textually command," 23 TVA Hill, 437 153 (1978), support lacked Endangered Species 1973 completion dam, operation either eradicate known population snail darter destroy critical habitat. 193-195. "only ensuring compliance." 314 (explaining Hill discretion). "order priorities," deprived effect choose deny 194. effect, Hobson's choice. By contrast, respect criminal alternative, customary, compliance resolution usually is) upheld B 24 conveniences parties, sitting "ignore deliberately legislation." Virginian R. Railway Employees, 300 515, 551 (1937). example, choice, articulated behavior prohibited. "Once delegated priorities given area, them sought." U.S., Courts balance struck 194-195. (unless contrary) simply enforcing means; all.9 exercises advantages disadvantages nonenforcement "employing injunction," 311, methods enforcement. Cf. 316 (referring "discretion rely remedies immediate prohibitory injunction") C 25 considering relevant "serious conditions whom treat symptoms," "will suffer denied cannabis," "there effective conditions." explained above, already against cover evidence. thus error instruct 26 27 reversed, proceedings consistent opinion. ordered. 29 Breyer 30 Ginsburg join, judgment. 31 <nllfot>Notes: requested, granted, prohibited well simplicity, opinion, refer collectively activities. amended reaffirmed generally carved out cases ordered "[t]he foregoing [the Cooperative] patient-members (1) condition, (2) will patient-member access cannabis, (3) patient-member's condition associated (4) reasonable alleviation tried alternatives ineffective alleviating result side effects reasonably tolerate." 16a-17a. amending At stayed pending appeal. 530 1298 postponed oral incorrect Bailey settled There, prisoner adverse prison justified escape. unavailable prisoners, like fail present bona fide effort surrender soon claimed lost coercive force. 415. argued, occasion consider, although noted "legislates background Anglo-Saxon law" "may" contemplated refused "balanc[e] [the] harms," explaining "we construing drafting it." 415, n. 11. intimation elimination requires "explici[t]" statement. 21. Considering never viable justification violating 5-6, 3, entail social balancing better left bar high. noted, 5, Unlike prescription. 1998 "sense Congress" resolution, 112 2681-760 2681-761, position foreclosed defense. Entitled "Not Legalizing Medicinal Use," declares "Congress continues existing Federal efficacy opposes efforts circumvent legalizing medicinal scientific Food Drug Administration." conclude resolution" additional eliminate Lest confusion, clarify nothing analysis, drawn between Furthermore, very point holding "seriously ill" avenues ill," see, 11, 13, 17, lacking "alternatives," 13. warrant reversing share Stevens' concern "showing sovereign comprise Union." Post, (opinion judgment). However, "construing interpret, author, code, liberty rewrite passing today question, Clause. Notwithstanding concerns, post, 4, appropriate us misconstrued affirmance. (1944), restrain Emergency Price Control 1942 regulations thereunder "some 'other order' appropriate, least appear court." (quoting provision enabled restraining order, "or order"). 305 (1982), precluding Navy releasing ordnance water, compliance, ordering permit. 314-318. Amoco Production Gambell, 480 531, 544-546 (1987) (holding err declining exploratory drilling Alaskan lands, "did undermine" Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation 3120 Secretary Interior meaningfully complying statute). 32 narrow broad dicta, let me restate here: "[W]e marijuana." Ante, added). confined grant certiorari, "[w]hether prohibition (I) And, distribution, raised litigated below. stated "whether [respondents'] admitted persons physician's law," so, "should pursuant Act." 1091 1998) 33 Accordingly, lower respondents cooperative members, context 1114 surely reverse determination. classification substance-that is, outside approved 812 823(f), 829-makes marijuana," ante, added)).1 Apart holding, takes unwarranted unfortunate excursions prevent joining First, reaches facts suggesting anyone 6-9, 10, 7, 15. venture distributors. Most notably, avoiding starvation suffering here.2 35 Second, gratuitously casts it, calling misleading reference existence "open question." 6. precedent about viability statutes words. 415 (1980) ("We therefore defendant charged escape claims he instruction theory duress proffer return custody force"); ("Our principal difference dissent, therefore, importance element it" added)). comment availability completely unnecessary suggestion. Petitioner 17-18 (narrowly "canvassed issue" precluded (internal quotation marks omitted)). pure dictum. 36 overbroad showing Union. That whenever possible, minimize conflict state particularly situations citizens State "serve laboratory" trial "novel economic experiments risk rest country." New Ice Liebmann, 285 262, 311 (1932) (Brandeis, dissenting). my view, case.(FN3( Proposition 215, caregivers exempt prosecution cultivating recommends using treatment.4 call deprive benefit prosecution, involve 37 An deserves emphasis. require rule enjoin, refuse Whether abuse sorts sort violator, "open" 38 join reversal agree distributor dicta Notes: fit paradigm (1980); pp. 627-640 Respondents, hand, forced confront evils-violating law letting individuals suffer-but thrust themselves electing distributors Of evils facing face. perhaps glaring example footnote opines "nothing 7. Feeney, Bush Backs States' Rights Marijuana: He Opposes Medical Favors Local Control, Dallas Morning News, Oct. 20, 1999, 6A, 1999 WL 28018944 (then-Governor supporting self-determination use). Since six States-Alaska, Colorado, Maine, Nevada, Oregon, Washington-have passed initiatives, Hawaii similar through legislature. 11.71.090, 17.37.010 17.37.080 (2000); Colo. Const., Art. XVIII, 14; Haw. Rev. 329-121 329-128 (Supp. 2000); Me. Ann., Tit. 22, 2383-B(5) Nev. 38; Ore. 475.300 475.346 (1999); Wash. 69.51A.005 69.51A.902 (1997 2000-2001).

Category: 0