Constitutional Law
In response to various state laws legalizing the use of medicinal marijuana, the federal government
amended the Controlled Substances Act (“CSAâ€). The CSA prohibits the manufacture, possession
or distribution of marijuana. The legislative history indicates the CSA was designed, among other
things, to deter state and local governments from “encouraging the intrastate distribution and
possession of medicinal marijuana because such activity contributes to swelling interstate traffic in
this substance.†Penalties for violating the CSA include but are not limited to, monetary fines.
Previously, the State of Inebriation had enacted the Compassionate Use of Marijuana Act
(“CUMAâ€), which permits qualifying residents to “obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes
where that medical use is deemed appropriate and has been recommended by a licensed physician.â€
CUMA conditions eligibility for the permit on the individual’s residency in Inebriation for at least
six months. The purposes of the residency requirement are two-fold: 1. “limit the burden on
Inebriation’s health care system from increased requests for medicinal marijuana use permits,†and
2. “ensure that the permits will be issued in such a way as to promote residents’ continued positive
contributions to society.†CUMA’s principal sponsor, F. Theodore Higgins, commented on the
Assembly floor. “we need CUMA’s residency requirement to discourage the migration of scam artists
and miscreants.†CUMA violators are subject to potential criminal and civil sanctions.
Joanne, who suffers from a debilitating medical condition, moved to Inebriation two months ago.
Joanne’s new husband, Clarence, also has a debilitating medical condition, but he has resided in
Inebriation for two years. Joanne and Clarence visit their Inebriation-based physician, Doctor, to
obtain a medicinal marijuana permit. Despite Joanne’s qualifying medical condition, the Doctor advises
he cannot issue her a medicinal marijuana permit. The doctor, however, does issue a permit to Clarence.
Clarence cultivates a small marijuana garden in the couple’s backyard, and they both use the crop
solely for their medicinal purposes. The federal government discovers Clarence’s garden,
impounds the crop and issues him a civil citation. After a trial in federal court, Clarence is assessed
a fine. Seeking to make an example of Joanne for her non-compliance, Inebriation issues her a civil
citation. After an Inebriation court proceeding, Joanne is also fined.
After exhausting their respective appeals in the Federal Circuit Court and Inebriation’s Supreme
Court, Joanne and Clarence’s petitions for certification to the United States Supreme Court have
been granted and consolidated.
You are a law clerk for the Supreme Court Justice assigned to
prepare the bench memorandum discussing Joanne and Clarence’s defenses raised in the proceedings
below. Please address the following three issues:
1) Is the CSA constitutional under the “commerce†clause? I.e., did Congress have the power to
pass this law?
2) Can the State of Inebriation law be applied even after the CSA is passed? Why or why not?
3) Is the enforcement of either law a violation of the Constitutional guarantee of “equal
protection� Discuss.
Please answer this question based on your knowledge of constitutional law and the National
Paralegal College courseware. There is no need to use or research case law in the completion of this
assignment.
Sample Solution
Bench Memorandum: Joanne and Clarence v. United States & Inebriation
I. Commerce Clause Analysis
The Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution empowers Congress to regulate commerce "among the several States." Here, the CSA prohibits the manufacture, possession, and distribution of marijuana, even for medicinal purposes.
Argument for Constitutionality:
Interstate Effects:Â The government argues that marijuana use, even medicinal, can have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Production and transportation of marijuana often cross state lines, and regulating its use can help control this interstate activity.
Argument Against Constitutionality:
Limited Reach:Â Joanne and Clarence cultivate and use marijuana solely within Inebriation. Their actions may not substantially impact interstate commerce, especially considering Inebriation has legalized medicinal marijuana.
Uncertain Outcome:
This issue is complex and could go either way. The Court might find the CSA constitutional due to the potential for interstate effects, even with localized cultivation. However, the specific facts of Joanne and Clarence's case, with their intrastate use, could raise questions about the true impact on interstate commerce.
II. Supremacy Clause Analysis
The Supremacy Clause states that federal law trumps conflicting state laws. Here, the CSA prohibits medicinal marijuana, while Inebriation's CUMA allows it.
Argument for Supremacy of Federal Law:
Clear Conflict:Â The CSA directly prohibits marijuana possession, creating a conflict with CUMA. Federal law should prevail.
Argument for State Sovereignty:
Limited Federal Interest:Â The federal government may not have a compelling interest in regulating medicinal marijuana use within a state, especially if the state has a legalized system like CUMA.
Full Answer Section
Uncertain Outcome:
The Court might find the CSA preempts CUMA due to the clear conflict. However, the Court could also consider the federal government's limited interest in regulating intrastate medicinal marijuana use, especially considering Inebriation's regulated system.
III. Equal Protection Analysis
The Equal Protection Clause requires states to treat similarly situated individuals in a similar manner. Here, Clarence receives a permit while Joanne does not solely due to the residency requirement.
Argument for Equal Protection Violation:
Disparate Treatment:Â Both Joanne and Clarence have qualifying medical conditions, yet the residency requirement creates an arbitrary distinction.
Argument Against Equal Protection Violation:
Rational Basis Review:Â States have broad discretion in regulating healthcare. Inebriation might argue the residency requirement is a rational way to manage its healthcare system and prevent misuse.
Uncertain Outcome:
The Court might find the residency requirement violates equal protection. However, the Court could also defer to Inebriation's justification for the residency requirement under a rational basis review standard.
Conclusion:
Joanne and Clarence have strong arguments to challenge both the CSA and CUMA's residency requirement. The outcome likely hinges on how the Court weighs the federal government's commerce clause power, the Supremacy Clause, and the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.
We are here to help
We have crazy offers
It’s quick and easy to place an order. We have an efficient customer service that works 24/7 to assist you.It’s quick and easy to place an order. We have an efficient customer service that works 24/7 to assist you.