Will provision in funding law stop feds from prosecuting marijuana crimes?
Image from Shutterstock.
The tension between new state laws that allow the sale of marijuana and federal laws that prohibit it has put some arguably law-abiding individuals at risk of spending time behind bars.
Among them is Charles Lynch, 52, who was convicted on federal felony charges after opening a medical marijuana dispensary in California.
His lawyers, however, have found a potential loophole that not only could vindicate their client but potentially put prosecutors on the hot seat, reports the New York Times (reg. req.).
In a little-known provision of a 2015 appropriations bill, Congress banned the U.S. Department of Justice from spending money to stop states from “implementing their own state laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession or cultivation of medical marijuana.” At least one legal academic has called the provision a “buried land mine,” the newspaper notes.
Lynch’s lawyers say that means federal prosecutors “would be committing criminal acts” if they continue the case against Lynch. The government disagrees, arguing that the language only applies to attempts by the feds to interfere with state action, not criminal prosecution of individuals.
Now the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is poised to decide the question, having been asked by Lynch’s lawyers to order the government to put a stop to the case against him. Similar arguments have been made in other federal cases elsewhere, too.
“If any court, especially the 9th Circuit, declares that the provision precludes federal prosecution of state-compliant individuals, this will be huge,” says Ohio State University law professor Douglas Berman, who edits the Marijuana Law, Policy & Reform blog.
