From Higher Perspective, March 19, 2015

On March 25th, Judge Mueller of the Sacramento Division of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California will announce her verdict for United States v. Schweder. The case will likely determine whether or not the Schedule I status for cannabis is constitutional or not. Being a Schedule I drug puts it in the same category as heroin.

Once this verdict is issued, it will almost certainly be appealed by whichever side loses. If so, it’ll go to the 9th circuit court. If it’s upheld, it will apply to states within the 9th circuit. If it’s appealed again, it’ll head to the US Supreme Court, which applies to the entire nation.

John Balazs, an attorney in Sacramento, sums the nature of the case up nicely:

In short, the defense brief argues that the evidence failed to support the continued inclusion of marijuana in Schedule I under either strict scrutiny or active rational basis review and the government’s state-based enforcement of federal drug laws in marijuana cases violates Equal Sovereignty.  Defense attorneys Zenia Gilg and Heather Burke do a good job of incorporating recent federal government actions into their constitutional arguments, most notably Section 538 of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015, which President Obama signed into law on December 16, 2014.  This new law bars the use of U.S. Department of Justice funds to prevent a number of listed states “from implementing their own State laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana.”  This law not only supports the defense’s Equal Sovereignty argument, but as the defense argues, “how is it Congress can justify a finding that marijuana has no medical benefit while demanding that the distribution of medical marijuana be protected from federal government interference.  This is not only irrational, it is absurd.”  Defense Brief, at 36.

The government counters that there is a rational basis for marijuana’s continued exclusion in Schedule I, so that the defense’s equal protection argument fails.  It also argues that (1) the defendants lack standing to challenge marijuana’s Schedule I listing; (2) the D.C. Circuit has exclusive jurisdiction over classification challenges; and (3) the government’s conduct does not violate Equal Sovereignty principles.  The government predictably ignores the Section 538 amendment that prohibits funding of federal government attempts to interfere with state medical marijuana laws.
Read more at http://higherperspective.com/2015/03/marijuana-prohibition.html#hKCUUi0tgM7rZ7k6.99