No, the government can't spend money on these prosecutions if the people involved were following state law perfectly. The court said that when the federal government goes after people who are obeying state medical marijuana rules, it's basically stopping the state's program from working. Congress's budget rule forbids that. However, the court made it very clear this isn't a 'get out of jail free' card. The protection only works if a person followed every single rule of their state's medical marijuana law. If they broke even one small rule, they are not protected, and the federal government can prosecute them. The court sent the cases back to the lower courts to have a special hearing to figure out if the defendants were actually following all the state rules.

Yes, the rule Congress made about the Department of Justice's budget means they can't use money from certain budgets to prosecute people for federal marijuana crimes if those people completely followed their state's medical marijuana laws. This is because the rule clearly says the Department of Justice can't spend money to stop states from putting their medical marijuana laws into action. The appeals court undid what the lower courts decided and said they need to have hearings to determine if the people charged fully followed all the rules their state law sets for medical marijuana.

Yes, the appropriations rider bars the Department of Justice from spending funds to prosecute individuals who are in strict compliance with their state's medical marijuana laws. The court reasoned that prosecuting individuals for conduct permitted by state medical marijuana laws is a direct method of preventing the state from giving practical effect to those laws. The text of the rider, which prohibits the DOJ from spending funds to 'prevent' states from 'implementing' their laws, must be interpreted to cover these prosecutions of private individuals, not just legal actions against the states themselves. However, this protection is not a blanket immunity; it applies only to those who 'strictly comply with all state-law conditions.' If an individual's conduct is not authorized under state law because they have failed to meet a condition, then a federal prosecution does not prevent the state from implementing its law, and the rider does not bar the use of funds for that prosecution. The court explicitly rejected using legislative history to interpret the appropriations rider, stating that only the statutory text is controlling. The cases were remanded for evidentiary hearings to determine if the defendants were in strict compliance with their respective state laws.

Yes, the congressional appropriations rider prohibits the Department of Justice from spending funds from relevant appropriations acts for the prosecution of individuals who engaged in conduct permitted by state medical marijuana laws and who fully complied with such laws, because the rider's text expressly restricts DOJ from spending money on actions that prevent states from implementing their laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana. The court vacated the orders of the district courts and remanded with instructions to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Appellants strictly complied with all relevant conditions imposed by state law on the use, distribution, possession, and cultivation of medical marijuana.

United States v. Steve McIntosh

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot