James v CITY OF Costa MESA PDF

Preview

Summary

Case...

Description

James v City of Costa Mesa Student Name: Michael Rouzer Statement of Facts: Four plaintiffs who suffer from severe medical conditions alleviate their pain by using medical marijuana monitored and recommended by their medical doctors. Medical Marijuana is a legal medicine in the state of California but is still a controlled substance under the federal Controlled Substance Act (CSA). Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the cities of Costa Mesa and Lake Forest, California for taking steps to close down medical marijuana dispensaries. Claim that the actions go against Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in the provision of public service. Lawsuit asked for the court to enjoin the cities actions (stop them from closing these stores down). Procedural History: District Court declined to issue an injunction on the ground that the ADA does not protect against the discrimination of on the basis of the plaintiffs marijuana use. Judge ruled that they do not have protection while using a drug that is illegal under the CSA. Plaintiffs appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Issues: Does the Plaintiffs marijuana use constitute “illegal use of drugs”? Under CSA and Illegal drug use is ‘the use of drugs, the possession or distribution of which is unlawful under the CSA. Such term does not include the use of a drug taken under the supervision of a licensed health care professional, or other uses authorized under the CSA or other provisions of federal law” Does this definition give two separate options or one? If two, the first part would cover the citizens use of marijuana because “Such term does not include the use of a drug taken under the supervision of a licensed health care professional”. If it is all one encompassing statement (in favor of the cities) then the plaintiffs would not be covered because “other uses authorized under the CSA or other provisions of federal law” would make it illegal.

Holding: Affirmed the District Courts decision Reasoning: The fact that the legislatures include the word “other” it would make the plaintiffs reading of the statement seem awkward. Not what it was intended to say… The cities interpretation seems to be more persuasive but they agree with the dissent that the text is inconclusive. Have to look at legislative history… Legislatures could not have foreseen the fact that states would legalize drugs that were considered illegal at the federal level. The use of the word “other” could put the category of supervised by a health professional under within the final statement of it having to be authorized by the CSA.

Result/Application: The cities could continue with shutting down medical marijuana facilities. Dissent: Marsha S. Berzon The language and legislative history supports Jame’s claim much more than the cities....