United States v. Pickard
2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51109, 100 F.Supp. 3d 981, 2015 WL 1767536 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The classification of marijuana as a Schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act does not violate the Fifth Amendment's equal protection component because a rational basis for the classification exists so long as there is a legitimate debate among credible experts regarding its potential for abuse, accepted medical use, and safety under medical supervision.
Facts:
- Brian Justin Pickard and several co-defendants were part of an alleged conspiracy.
- The object of the conspiracy was to manufacture at least 1,000 marijuana plants.
- The manufacturing activities allegedly took place on private property.
- The actions of Pickard and the co-defendants led to their prosecution under federal law for violating the Controlled Substances Act.
Procedural Posture:
- Brian Justin Pickard and fifteen others were indicted in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California for conspiracy to manufacture at least 1,000 marijuana plants.
- Pickard filed a pretrial motion to dismiss the indictment, arguing the classification of marijuana as a Schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act violates the Fifth and Tenth Amendments.
- The other remaining defendants joined the motion to dismiss.
- The district court granted the defendants' request for a five-day evidentiary hearing to take testimony from expert witnesses on the scientific and medical evidence related to marijuana.
- Following the hearing and submission of post-hearing briefs, the district court took the motion under submission.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the classification of marijuana as a Schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act violate the Fifth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause because it lacks a rational basis?
Opinions:
Majority - Mueller, J.
No, the classification of marijuana as a Schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act does not violate the Fifth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Under rational basis review, a legislative classification will be upheld so long as there is any reasonably conceivable set of facts that could provide a rational basis for it. The court found that because there are 'serious, principled differences' and ongoing debate among credible scientific and medical experts regarding marijuana's potential for abuse, its accepted medical use, and its safety, Congress has a rational basis for maintaining its Schedule I classification. The court rejected applying strict scrutiny because there is no fundamental right to use marijuana and the defendants failed to show that Congress acted with a discriminatory purpose against a suspect class. Given the conflicting expert testimony presented at an evidentiary hearing, the court cannot conclude that Congress's legislative judgment is irrational or arbitrary, and thus must defer to its policy choice.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the significant deference federal courts give to Congress under rational basis review, particularly in areas involving scientific uncertainty. It establishes that as long as a legitimate, good-faith scientific debate exists about a substance's properties, a court is unlikely to find its legislative classification unconstitutional. The ruling signals that the primary avenue for changing marijuana's federal status is through the legislative or administrative process, not judicial intervention, effectively raising the bar for future constitutional challenges by requiring a near-universal scientific consensus to overcome legislative judgment.
