Counties' Marijuana Laws: Overriding State Powers?

Marijuana legalization has been a contentious issue in the United States, with a conflict between federal and state laws. While marijuana remains illegal at the federal level, several states have passed legislation to legalize, decriminalize, or regulate its use, creating a complex dynamic between federal and state powers. This situation raises questions about the authority of counties within states to make decisions regarding marijuana legalization and enforcement, especially when state and federal laws are at odds. The discussion revolves around the interpretation of the Supremacy Clause, the Tenth Amendment, and the anti-commandeering rule, which limit federal intervention in state laws that do not affect national security or international relations. The actions of states and counties have significantly impacted the enforcement of marijuana-related laws and the number of arrests, highlighting the dynamic nature of marijuana legislation in the United States.

Can Counties Override State Law Regarding Marijuana?

Federal law enforcement priorities

Marijuana possession and distribution are federal crimes under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) and the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. However, the Tenth Amendment limits what state laws can be federally preempted, and Congress never intended to preempt state drug laws. While the federal government can enforce its marijuana laws, requiring state agents to enforce these laws is unconstitutional.

The federal government's position on marijuana has remained largely unchanged since the 1970s, with marijuana and marijuana products remaining illegal and subject to criminal law enforcement through the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA). In 2014, the Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a statement, often referred to as "the Cole memo", clarifying their approach to enforcement in states that have decriminalized marijuana. The memo identified eight enforcement priorities for federal prosecutors, including preventing the distribution of cannabis to minors, preventing cannabis revenue from funding criminal enterprises, and preventing cannabis from moving out of states where it is legal.

The Rohrabacher-Farr amendment, included in the 2014 spending bill, prohibits the Justice Department from spending funds to interfere with the implementation of state medical cannabis laws. This amendment has been included in subsequent spending bills. In 2018, the DOJ issued a statement rescinding the previous Cole memo, requiring US Attorneys to enforce the laws enacted by Congress. In December 2023, President Biden issued a blanket pardon for simple possession of marijuana, attempted possession, or use of marijuana in violation of federal and DC laws.

While the federal government continues to enforce marijuana prohibition, state governments have implemented their own approaches to cannabis production and sales, creating challenges for consumers, regulators, law enforcement, and businesses. The difference in approaches between federal and state governments has led to legal complexities, with states like Colorado and Washington facing raids and audits of medical marijuana businesses under federal law.

State sovereignty

In the United States, cannabis laws vary across states, with 39 of 50 states legalizing it for medical use and 24 for recreational use. Marijuana possession and distribution are federal crimes under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) and the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution, which states that federal law is the "supreme Law of the Land". However, the US system of government is one of dual sovereignty, and the Tenth Amendment prevents Congress from forcing states to enforce federal policies. While federal law creates challenges and injustices, it does not prevent states from legalizing cannabis for adult or medical use.

The federal government has never alleged in court that federal laws override state medical marijuana or legalization and regulation laws. The Department of Justice (DOJ) has argued in favor of dismissing lawsuits claiming that state medical marijuana laws are preempted by federal law. The Rohrabacher-Farr amendment, passed in 2014, prohibits federal prosecution of individuals complying with state medical cannabis laws. The federal government has not targeted state-legal marijuana providers in over a decade, formalizing a policy of non-interference unless a specific federal interest is implicated. This policy was outlined in the DOJ's 2013 Cole Memo, which was rescinded in 2018 but largely continued in practice.

While the federal government can enforce its marijuana laws, requiring state agents to do so is unconstitutional, as per the Tenth Amendment's "anti-commandeering rule". The Supreme Court has also overturned federal laws that sought to prohibit states from authorizing activities like sports gambling, citing violations of the Tenth Amendment. This sets a precedent that could protect states' rights to legalize cannabis.

At the state level, marijuana laws can vary by county, and it is important to respect the rules that vary across the US regarding marijuana use. For example, in Nevada, certain counties have legalized prostitution, which violates federal law, but the federal government has not enforced pre-emption in these counties. In California, medical marijuana dispensaries have been raided by federal authorities, while in Oakland, the city sued the federal government for attempting to close a medical marijuana facility, with the case still unresolved.

The Tenth Amendment

Marijuana legalization has been a contentious issue in the United States, with states passing legislation that conflicts with federal law. The Tenth Amendment plays a crucial role in this debate, as it limits the federal government's power over state laws.

The "anti-commandeering rule" stemming from the Tenth Amendment prohibits the federal government from requiring state agents to enforce federal marijuana laws. This rule was affirmed in a 2018 US Supreme Court decision that overturned a federal law prohibiting states from authorizing sports gambling. The Court's ruling highlighted the unconstitutionality of forcing states to enforce federal policies.

While the federal government can enforce its marijuana laws, it cannot compel state agents to do so. This distinction is crucial, as it allows states to implement their own marijuana policies without violating federal law. For example, in Arizona, a state court rejected a preemption challenge, arguing that the Tenth Amendment prohibits Congress from imposing federal drug laws on the state. Similarly, the Department of Justice (DOJ) supported dismissing a lawsuit claiming that Arizona's medical marijuana law was preempted by federal law.

The Supremacy Clause

Marijuana legalization has been a contentious issue in the United States, with a conflict between state laws that allow limited marijuana use and federal law that prohibits it. This conflict falls under the domain of the federal Constitution's Supremacy Clause, which states that the Constitution and federal laws made in pursuance thereof "shall be the supreme Law of the Land."

While the federal government has established a prohibition on marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), principles of federalism and the Tenth Amendment prevent the federal government from forcing states to enforce federal marijuana laws. The Tenth Amendment's "anti-commandeering rule" limits the federal government's ability to compel states to enact or enforce laws that align with federal policies. This means that while the federal government can enforce its marijuana laws, it cannot require state agents to do so.

Additionally, courts have held that the CSA only preempts state laws under specific circumstances. A state law is preempted by the CSA only if it is “physically impossible” to comply with both the state and federal laws or if the state law obstructs the CSA. Carefully crafted state medical marijuana programs do not fall under these categories, and as a result, they are not preempted by federal law.

In summary, while the Supremacy Clause gives federal law supreme authority, the complex interplay between federal and state laws regarding marijuana legalization has resulted in a situation where states have a degree of autonomy in legalizing and regulating marijuana use. The federal government's ability to enforce its marijuana laws is limited by principles of federalism, the Tenth Amendment, and the careful design of state marijuana programs.

Federal interference

Marijuana legalization has been a contentious issue in the United States, with a conflict between federal and state laws. On a federal level, marijuana is illegal and classified as a Schedule I drug with a high potential for abuse and little to no medical benefit. However, several states have passed legislation to legalize marijuana for medical or adult use, creating a situation where residents comply with state law but violate federal law. This discrepancy has led to various challenges and complications.

Firstly, the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2) establishes federal law as the "supreme Law of the Land," suggesting that federal law takes precedence when it conflicts with state law. This clause includes the doctrine of pre-emption, which gives the federal government the upper hand in such situations. However, the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution limits federal preemption of state laws and prevents Congress from forcing states to mirror or enforce federal policies. The anti-commandeering rule, derived from the Tenth Amendment, prohibits the federal government from requiring state agents to enforce federal marijuana laws, allowing states to chart their own paths.

The Controlled Substances Act (CSA) further clarifies that it only preempts state laws under very limited circumstances. According to 21 U.S.C. 903, the CSA does not intend to preempt state drug laws unless there is a "positive conflict" where compliance with both state and federal laws becomes impossible. Courts have generally upheld this interpretation, and carefully crafted state medical marijuana programs do not fall under this category. These programs regulate private individuals' actions without requiring state workers to violate federal law.

Despite the apparent conflict, the federal government has not actively interfered with state marijuana laws. In 2013, the Department of Justice issued the Cole memo, acknowledging states' authority to legalize cannabis and outlining enforcement areas for federal law enforcement. Additionally, in 2018, the Department of Justice rescinded a previous memo, reducing stringent regulation requirements for states. While the federal government maintains its own marijuana laws, it has not consistently enforced them at the state level, as seen in the case of Nevada's legalized prostitution, where the doctrine of pre-emption has not been enforced.

The conflict between federal and state marijuana laws has created challenges, particularly in commerce and capital. Marijuana businesses face difficulties accessing banking services due to concerns about violating federal anti-money laundering laws. This situation has made them vulnerable to theft and burdened them with substantial federal tax bills. Additionally, the federal restriction on interstate commerce has caused market imbalances, with certain states unable to export their surplus marijuana to neighboring states. The limited access to marijuana as a Schedule I substance has also hindered research into its benefits, risks, and environmental impacts.

Frequently asked questions