Slash Boxes

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 16 submissions in the queue.
posted by CoolHand on Monday March 21 2016, @09:49PM   Printer-friendly
from the going-green dept.

The Supreme Court has refused to hear a challenge to Colorado's recreational cannabis law from neighboring states:

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday threw out a lawsuit filed by the states of Nebraska and Oklahoma against their neighbor Colorado over a law approved as a ballot initiative by Colorado voters in 2012 that allows the recreational use of marijuana. The court declined to hear the case filed by Nebraska and Oklahoma, which said that marijuana is being smuggled across their borders and noted that federal law still prohibits the drug. Two conservative justices, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, said they would have heard the case.

Nebraska and Oklahoma contended that drugs such as marijuana threaten the health and safety of children and argued that Colorado had created "a dangerous gap" in the federal drug control system. Colorado stands by its law. It noted that the Obama administration has indicated the federal government lacks the resources and inclination to enforce fully the federal marijuana ban.

Also at The Washington Post, NYT.

See the Plaintiffs' brief, and Colorado's brief in opposition.

Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by meustrus on Tuesday March 22 2016, @02:17PM

    by meustrus (4961) on Tuesday March 22 2016, @02:17PM (#321617)
    When the Supreme Court refuses to hear a case, that doesn't mean the case is found in favor of the defendant (as the summary implies). It means that the lower court ruling stands. So what exactly is the lower court ruling?
    If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by Capt. Obvious on Tuesday March 22 2016, @03:13PM

    by Capt. Obvious (6089) on Tuesday March 22 2016, @03:13PM (#321661)

    There was no lower court ruling. On an issue of a lawsuit between two (or more) states, they directly petition the Supreme Court to get a final ruling. (No lower court has standing to rule on such a matter.)

    Apparently the usual methodology in such cases is to have an arbitration, and then analyze the results of the arbitration as an appealed case. That way, it fits in with the same format/rules as other cases. Kind of an elegant hack

    US Constitution, Article III, Section 2 contains: In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.