United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Cooperative Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained скачать в хорошем качестве

United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Cooperative Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained

Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 35,900 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 984 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o... United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Cooperative | 532 U.S. 483 (2001) Medical necessity is a defense that attempts to justify criminal conduct, usually the violation of drug laws, by proving that the conduct was essential to medical treatment. The United States Supreme Court considered whether this was a defense to marijuana-related violations of the Controlled Substances Act in the early two thousands case of United States versus Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Cooperative. Upon passing the Controlled Substances Act, Congress classified marijuana as a schedule one drug. Schedule one, the most restrictive of the five drug schedules under the act, is reserved for drugs with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for dependency or abuse. Accordingly, the only exception to the act’s prohibition on the manufacture and distribution of schedule one drugs is for government-approved research projects. In the mid-nineteen nineties, California voters approved an initiative called the Compassionate Use Act. This act made it legal, at the state level, for patients and their primary caregivers to cultivate and possess marijuana for physician-approved medical purposes. Subsequently, the Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Cooperative opened a nonprofit medical-marijuana dispensary for qualified patients in need. The federal government filed suit in the Northern District of California, seeking to enjoin the cooperative from manufacturing and distributing marijuana. The government argued that the cooperative was violating the Controlled Substances Act, even if its activities were acceptable under California law. The district court granted a preliminary injunction, which the cooperative flagrantly violated by continuing to distribute marijuana. In response, the government initiated contempt proceedings against the cooperative, which defended on the ground that the distributions were medically necessary. The district court ultimately rejected this defense and held the cooperative in contempt. The district court also modified the injunction, empowering the government to seize the cooperative’s property. A few days after that, the district court denied the cooperative’s motion to modify the injunction to include a medical-necessity defense. The cooperative appealed to the Ninth Circuit, challenging the contempt order and the denial of its motion to modify the injunction. While the appeal was still pending, the cooperative cleared itself of contempt by promising to comply with the injunction. This mooted the appeal of the contempt order, but there was still a live controversy regarding the denial of the cooperative’s motion. The Ninth Circuit reversed that denial, and, on remand, the district court modified the injunction to include a medical-necessity defense. The government appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which granted cert to review the Ninth Circuit’s determination that the cooperative had a legally recognizable medical-necessity defense. Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/united-... The Quimbee App features over 35,900 case briefs keyed to 984 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o... Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/united-... Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► https://www.youtube.com/subscription_... Quimbee Case Brief App ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o... ►   / twitter   ► https://twitter.com/quimbeedotcom#cas... #lawcases #casesummaries