throbber
No. 20-148
`
`In the
`Supreme Court of the United States
`
`MARVIN WASHINGTON, DB, AS PARENT OF INFANT
`AB, JOSE BELEN, SC, AS PARENT OF INFANT JC,
`AND CANNABIS CULTURAL ASSOCIATION INC.,
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`WILLIAM PELHAM BARR, IN HIS OFFICIAL
`CAPACITY AS UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
`GENERAL, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
`JUSTICE, TIMOTHY J. SHEA, IN HIS OFFICIAL
`CAPACITY AS ACTING DIRECTOR OF THE DRUG
`ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION, UNITED
`STATES DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION,
`AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
`Respondents.
`
`On PetitiOn fOr a Writ Of CertiOrari tO the
`United StateS COUrt Of aPPealS fOr the SeCOnd CirCUit
`
`BRIEF OF MINORITY CANNABIS BUSINESS ASSOCIATION
`AND MINORITIES FOR MEDICAL MARIJUANA, INC. AS
`AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS
`
`WIllIam Bogot
`Joseph CollIns
`Counsel of Record
`alexandra soBol
`Fox rothsChIld llp
`321 North Clark Street, Suite 1600
`Chicago, Illinois 60654
`(312) 517-9227
`jcollins@foxrothschild.com
`
`Counsel for Amici Curiae
`
`September 4, 2020
`
`298074
`
`

`

`i
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
`
`TABLE OF CITED AUTHORITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
`
`INTERESTS OF THE AMICI CURIAE . . . . . . . . . . .1
`
` SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2
`
`ARGUMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
`
`I. The Classification of Cannabis as a Schedule
`I Drug Under the CSA (21 U.S.C. § 812(B)(1))
`Violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth
`Amendment to the U.S. Constitution Because
`the Classification Was Based on an Invidious
`Discriminatory Purpose. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
`
`
`
`II. Administrative Remedies Would Be Futile
`Because the Administrative Body Has Shown
`Itself to Be Biased on Numerous Occasions. . . . .7
`
`
`
`CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`

`

`ii
`
`Cases
`
`Bolling v. Sharpe,
`
`347 U.S. 497 (1954) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
`
`McCarthy v. Madigan,
`
`503 U.S. 140 (1992) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
`
`U.S. Dep’t of Agriculture v. Monroe,
`
`413 U.S. 528 (1973) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
`
`Village of Arlington Heights v.
`Metropolitan Housing Development Corp.,
`429 U.S. 252 (1977). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
`
`
`
`Washington v. Davis,
`
`426 U.S. 229 (1976). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3, 4
`
`Statutes and Other Authorities
`
`U.S. Const. Amend. V . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2, 7
`
`21 U.S.C. § 811(a)(2)(3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9
`
`21 U.S.C. § 812(B)(1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
`
`Comparison of Bills to Regulate Controlled
`Dangerous Substances and to Amend the
`Narcotic and Drug Laws, Staff of H. Comm.
` Ways and Means (Aug. 8, 1970) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5
`
`TABLE OF CITED AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`

`

`iii
`
`Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. § 812. . . . . . . . . . .2
`
`Drug Abuse Control Amendment-I 970: Hearings
`on H.R. 11701 and H.R. 13743 Before the
`Subcomm. on Public Health and Welfare of H.
`Comm. on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,
`91st Cong. 80 (1970. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5
`
`
`
`Health Secretary: There’s ‘no such thing as medical
` marijuana,’ dayton daIly neWs (Mar. 5, 2018) . . . .8
`
`James Higdon, Jeff Sessions’ Coming War on Legal
` Marijuana, polItICo (Dec. 5, 2016) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9
`
`Christopher Ingraham, Jeff Sessions personally
`asked Congress to let him prosecute
`m e d i c a l - m a r ij u a n a p r o v i d e r s, t h e
` WashIngton post (June 13, 2017) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9
`
`Josh Gerstein, Sessions to step up drug-war seizures,
` polItICo (July 19, 2017) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9
`
`Paula Reid and Stephanie Condon, DEA chief says
`smoking marijuana as medicine “is a joke,”
` CBS News (Nov. 4, 2015). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
`
`Cited Authorities
`
`Page
`
`

`

`1
`
`INTERESTS OF THE AMICI CURIAE 1
`
`The Minority Cannabis Business Association
`(“MCBA”) is a 501(c)(6) non-profit organization created
`to serve the needs of minority cannabis entrepreneurs,
`workers, patients, and consumers alike. Its mission is to
`create equal access and promote economic empowerment
`for communities of color through policy considerations and
`outreach initiatives aimed at achieving equity for those
`most affected by the “War on Drugs.”
`
`Minorities for Medical Marijuana, Inc. (“MFMM”)
`is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization focused on advocacy
`and education in support of minorities who have a vested
`interest in cannabis public policy, business, healthcare
`access, and social impact. MFMM envisions a forward
`thinking and progressive approach to social justice and
`equality in cannabis.
`
`Together, amici are committed to dismantling
`systemic discrimination in the cannabis industry. As
`part of those efforts, they share an interest in addressing
`the discriminatory intent underlying the classification
`of cannabis as a Schedule I drug under the Controlled
`Substances Act as well as inherent bias within the Drug
`Enforcement Agency’s (“DEA’s”) administrative review
`process. Accordingly, amici respectfully submit this brief
`in support of certiorari and urge the Court to grant the
`Petition for a Writ of Certiorari.
`
`1. MCBA and MFMM state that no counsel for a party to
`this case authored this brief in whole or in part; and no counsel
`or party, other than amici and its counsel, made a monetary
`contribution intended to fund the preparation and submission of
`this brief. All parties have received timely notice of amici’s intent
`to file and have consented to the filing of this brief.
`
`

`

`2
`
` SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
`
`Petitioners filed a complaint in the United States
`District Court for the Southern District of New York
`seeking (1) a judicial declaration that the classification
`of cannabis as a Schedule I drug under the Controlled
`Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. § 812 et seq. (“CSA”), is
`unconstitutional, and (2) a prayer for injunctive relief
`against enforcement of the CSA as it pertains to cannabis.
`(Pet. App. 159a-279a). The district court dismissed
`the complaint with prejudice for failure to exhaust
`administrative remedies and, in the alternative, failure
`to state a claim. (Id. at 32a-58a). The United States
`Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed in part,
`agreeing that Petitioners were first required to exhaust
`administrative remedies. (Id. at 3a-29a). Petitioners now
`seek from this Court a writ of certiorari to review the
`decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the
`Second Circuit.
`
`In their Petition for a Writ of Certiorari (“Petition”),
`Petitioners argue that the classification of cannabis as
`a Schedule I drug under the CSA is so irrational that it
`violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment
`to the U.S. Constitution. (Pet. 29-31). Amici join in this
`argument, but further submit (as Petitioners argued in
`the lower courts) that such classification also violates the
`Due Process Clause because it was based on an invidious
`discriminatory purpose.2
`
`2. Petitioners’ Memorandum of Law in Opposition to
`Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss (“District Court Brief”) at 57-59;
`Petitioners’ Appellate Brief to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals
`(“Appellate Brief”) at 47-50.
`
`

`

`3
`
`Petitioners further argue in their Petition that they
`were not first required to exhaust administrative remedies
`prior to filing their complaint because (1) the complaint did
`not seek an administrative remedy, and (2) administrative
`review would be futile because the agency—by its own
`admission—is not empowered to grant the relief sought by
`Petitioners. (Id. at 31-33). Amici join in these arguments,
`but further submit (as Petitioners argued in the lower
`courts) that administrative review would also be futile
`because the administrative body has shown itself to be
`biased.3
`
`Given the millions of registered patients who rely
`upon cannabis to preserve their health and lives, and
`the discriminatory motives behind the classification of
`cannabis under the CSA, it is imperative that this Court
`provide clarity in this area of law.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`I. The Classification of Cannabis as a Schedule I Drug
`Under the CSA (21 U.S.C. § 812(B)(1)) Violates the
`Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the
`U.S. Constitution Because the Classification Was
`Based on an Invidious Discriminatory Purpose.
`
`The central purpose of the Equal Protection Clause
`of the Fourteenth Amendment is the prevention of official
`conduct discriminating on the basis of race. Washington
`v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 239 (1976). “It is also true that the
`Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment contains an
`equal protection component prohibiting the United States
`from invidiously discriminating between individuals or
`groups.” Id. (citing Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497, 499
`
`3. District Court Brief at 107-08; Appellate Brief at 27-29.
`
`

`

`4
`
`(1954)). In Davis, this Court set forth the “basic equal
`protection principle” that the governmental action claimed
`to be discriminatory must ultimately be traced to an
`invidious discriminatory purpose. 426 U.S. at 240. An
`invidious discriminatory purpose may often be inferred
`from “the totality of the relevant facts.” Id. at 242.
`“Determining whether invidious discriminatory purpose
`was a motivating factor demands a sensitive inquiry into
`such circumstantial and direct evidence of intent as may
`be available.” Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan
`Housing Development Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 266 (1977);
`see also U.S. Dep’t of Agriculture v. Monroe, 413 U.S.
`528, 534 (1973) (finding a statutory amendment violated
`the equal protection clause because it “was intended to
`prevent so called ‘hippies’ and ‘hippie communities’ from
`participating in the food stamp program” and holding that
`“a desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot
`constitute a legitimate governmental interest”).
`
`Her e , t he d i sc r i m i n at or y pu r p o se of t he
`classification of cannabis is well-documented. In 1969,
`the Nixon administration formed a commission under the
`chairmanship of Raymond Shafer, a former Republican
`Governor of Pennsylvania, as a means to establish the
`dangers of cannabis as a means to prosecute persons of
`color and anti-war protesters. (Pet. App. 218a-219a).4 As
`learned later through the Nixon tapes, these were two
`groups Nixon despised. Indeed, John Erlichman, a senior
`advisor to Nixon, was quoted as saying:
`
`We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be
`either against the war or black, but by getting
`the public to associate the hippies with
`marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then
`
`4. See also District Court Brief at 17; Appellate Brief at 13.
`
`

`

`5
`
`criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt
`those communities. We could arrest their
`leaders, raid their homes, break up their
`meetings, and vilify them night after night on
`the evening news. Did we know we were lying
`about the drugs? Of course we did.
`
`(Id. at 219a).5
`
`Shafer, however, did not support Nixon’s agenda.
`The Shafer Commission concluded that cannabis was
`not as dangerous as perceived, and even recommended
`decriminalization of cannabis. (Id. at 216a-218a).6 The
`Nixon Administration, however, summarily rejected the
`Shafer Commission Findings, and urged Congress to
`criminalize cannabis under the CSA. (Id. at 221a-222a).7 In
`fact, former Attorney General John Mitchell of the Nixon
`Administration actually drafted the CSA.8 Congress then
`adopted the CSA at Nixon’s insistence on October 27,
`1970—approximately one month after it was introduced.
`At the request of the Nixon Administration, Congress
`
`5. See also District Court Brief at 17; Appellate Brief at 13.
`
`6. See also District Court Brief at 16-17; Appellate Brief at
`13-14.
`
`7. See also District Court Brief at 17; Appellate Brief at 12-13.
`
`8. See Comparison of Bills to Regulate Controlled Dangerous
`Substances and to Amend the Narcotic and Drug Laws, Staff of
`H. Comm. Ways and Means (Aug. 8, 1970); see also Drug Abuse
`Control Amendment-I 970: Hearings on H.R. 11701 and H.R.
`13743 Before the Subcomm. on Public Health and Welfare of H.
`Comm. on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, 91st Cong. 80 (1970)
`(statement of John Mitchell, Atty Gen. of the U.S.) (noting that
`“the administration sent to Congress the proposed ‘Controlled
`Dangerous Substances Act.’”).
`
`

`

`6
`
`placed cannabis under Schedule I, notwithstanding the
`findings of the Shafer Commission that belied such a
`classification. (Pet. App. 213a-214a). 9
`
`As referenced in the Petition, another Nixon
`Administration alumnus provided an affidavit to
`Petitioners explaining that Nixon sought to criminalize
`cannabis pursuant to the CSA not out of concern for public
`health, but because he associated cannabis with persons
`of color and the anti-war left—two groups he regarded
`as hostile to him and his administration. (Pet. 14) (citing
`Pet. App. 221a-226a). In criminalizing cannabis, Nixon
`believed he had devised a seemingly neutral basis upon
`which to target so-called hippies and persons of color—
`his perceived enemies—without raising constitutional
`concerns. As stated in the affidavit:
`
`The driving force behind the CSA and
`its administration was to suppress and
`discriminate. It represents a regrettable and
`unfortunate period in American history which,
`I trust, contemporary society will, at some
`point, endeavor to correct—perhaps now.
`
`(Pet. App. 221a-226a).
`
`And finally, as set forth in the Petition, the following
`entry in the diary maintained by H.R. Haldeman, Nixon’s
`Chief of Staff, leaves no doubt as to the purpose for the
`criminalization of cannabis:
`
`[Nixon] emphasized that you have to face the
`fact that the whole problem is really the blacks.
`
`9. See also District Court Brief at 16-20; Appellate Brief
`at 12.
`
`

`

`7
`
`The key is to devise a system that recognizes
`this while not appearing to [do so].
`
`(Pet. 15).10
`
`An invidious discriminatory purpose can and should
`be inferred from the totality of the relevant facts outlined
`above. The findings of the Shafer Commission demonstrate
`that there is no plausible basis for classifying cannabis as a
`Schedule I drug under the CSA. Moreover, the statements
`and testimony of former Nixon Administration officials
`establish that the classification was based on an invidious
`discriminatory purpose. As such, the classification violates
`the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the
`U.S. Constitution.
`
`II. Administrative Remedies Would Be Futile Because
`the Administrative Body Has Shown Itself to Be
`Biased on Numerous Occasions.
`
`Amici agree with Petitioners that “filing a petition
`with the DEA for de-scheduling cannabis would have
`been a futile endeavor.” (Pet. 32).11 Because exhaustion
`of administrative remedies is not mandated by the CSA,
`the federal courts must exercise sound judicial discretion
`in determining whether to require such exhaustion. In
`exercising its sound judicial discretion, the Court must
`balance the individual’s interest in retaining prompt
`access to a federal judicial forum against countervailing
`
`10. See also District Court Brief at 58-59; Appellate Brief
`at 14.
`
`11. Petitioners, of course, never sought de-classification
`or re-classification of cannabis. As stated in their Petition,
`Petitioners sought a declaration that the classification of cannabis
`is unconstitutional. (Pet. 33).
`
`

`

`8
`
`institutional interests favoring exhaustion. McCarthy v.
`Madigan, 503 U.S. 140, 141 (1992), superseded by statute
`on other grounds as recognized in Porter v. Sussle, 534
`U.S. 516 (2002). However, “[i]ndividual interests have
`weighed heavily where resort to the administrative
`remedy would occasion undue prejudice to subsequent
`assertion of a court action, where there is some doubt as
`to whether the agency is empowered to grant effective
`relief, or where the administrative body is shown to be
`biased or has otherwise predetermined the issue before
`it.” Id. at 140, 141.
`
`Here, anti-cannabis bias is pervasive throughout
`the administrative body. At the time Petitioners’ lawsuit
`was filed, the then-Administrator of the DEA, Philip
`Rosenberg, with whom re-scheduling petitions would be
`filed, and who made recommendations to the Attorney
`General on such issues, had already “decided” that medical
`cannabis is “a joke.”12 The Administrator further rejected
`the “notion that marijuana is also medicinal—because it’s
`not,” and any suggestion that cannabis is medicine “really
`bothers” him.13 Similarly, the present U.S. Health and
`Human Services Secretary, Alex Azar stated during a
`press conference that “[t]here really is no such thing as
`medical marijuana.”14
`
`12. Appellate Brief at 27; Paula Reid and Stephanie Condon,
`DEA chief says smoking marijuana as medicine “is a joke,” CBS
`News (Nov. 4, 2015), https://www.cbsnews.com/news/dea-chief-
`says-smoking-marijuana-as-medicine-is-a-joke/.
`
`13. Id.
`
`14. Health Secretary: There’s ‘no such thing as medical
`marijuana,’ dayton daIly neWs (Mar. 5, 2018), https://www.
`daytondailynews.com/news/local/such-thing-medical-marijuana-
`health-secretary-says-dayton/La8dTJgu6nF3ojSc1z6yPO/.
`
`

`

`9
`
`Furthermore, then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions,
`who was expressly charged with the responsibility of
`deciding re-scheduling petitions under the CSA, 21 U.S.C.
`§811(a)(2)(3), made several disparaging remarks regarding
`the use of cannabis, including that “he thought the KKK
`‘were [sic] OK until I found out they smoked pot’” and
`“[g]ood people don’t smoke marijuana.”15 Moreover, less
`than three months prior to commencement of Petitioners’
`action, Sessions sent a letter urging Congress to revoke
`riders to omnibus appropriations legislation—expressly
`prohibiting use of federal funds to prosecute State-
`legal cultivation, possession, sale of, and treatment with
`cannabis—so that he could prosecute those treating with
`State-legal medical cannabis.16 And just one week before
`this lawsuit was filed, Sessions announced his intention
`to file civil forfeiture proceedings against those who own
`and operate State-compliant cannabis businesses—what
`Sessions described as “dangerous illegal drug activity.”17
`
`While the Appellate Court seemed to agree that
`Sessions was biased, it also believed that Sessions’
`successor, Attorney General William Barr, would prove
`
`15. Appellate Brief at 28; James Higdon, Jeff Sessions’
`Coming War on Legal Marijuana, polItICo (Dec. 5, 2016), https://
`www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/12/jeff-sessions-coming-
`war-on-legal-marijuana-214501.
`
`16. Christopher Ingraham, Jeff Sessions personally asked
`Congress to let him prosecute medical-marijuana providers, the
`WashIngton post (June 13, 2017), https://www.washingtonpost.
`com/news/wonk/wp/2017/06/13/jeff-sessions-personally-asked-
`congress-to-let-him-prosecute-medical-marijuana-providers/.
`
`17. Appellate Brief at 28; Josh Gerstein, Sessions to step up
`drug-war seizures, polItICo (July 19, 2017), https://www.politico.
`com/story/2017/07/19/jeff-sessions-drug-war-seizures-240706.
`
`

`

`10
`
`not to be. (Pet. App. 15a-16a). That hope has proved to be
`misplaced. In fact, regarding current Attorney General
`William Barr, a career Department of Justice employee
`recently testified to Congress that Barr’s personal
`opposition to marijuana led him to direct improper
`antitrust investigations into multiple cannabis company
`mergers—accounting for nearly one-third of the division’s
`cases in 2019. According to the whistleblower, Barr’s
`directives “centered not on an antitrust analysis, but
`because he did not like the nature of their underlying
`business.”18 According to the whistleblower, the head of the
`Antitrust Division, Assistant Attorney General Delrahim,
`responded to internal concerns about these investigations
`at an all-staff meeting on September 17, 2019. There,
`Delrahim acknowledged that the investigations were
`motivated by the fact that “the cannabis industry is
`unpopular ‘on the fifth floor,’ a reference to Attorney
`General Barr’s offices in the DOJ headquarters building.”19
`
`Due to the compelling examples of bias set forth
`above, Petitioners’ individual interests in retaining prompt
`access to a federal judicial forum weighs heavily against
`countervailing institutional interests favoring exhaustion
`of administrative remedies, and would occasion undue
`prejudice to subsequent assertion of a court action. For
`this additional reason, Petitioners should be permitted to
`proceed with their action in the district court.
`
`18. Oversight of the Department of Justice: Political
`Interference and Threats to Prosecutorial Independence Before
`the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 116th Cong. (2020) (testimony of
`John W. Elias, chief of staff for the Justice Department’s Antitrust
`Division), https://www.congress.gov/116/meeting/house/110836/
`witnesses/HHRG-116-JU00-Wstate-EliasJ-20200624-U8.pdf.
`
`19. Id.
`
`

`

`11
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, amici MCBA and MFMM
`respectfully request that the Court grant the petition for
`a writ of certiorari.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`WIllIam Bogot
`Joseph CollIns
`Counsel of Record
`alexandra soBol
`Fox rothsChIld llp
`321 North Clark Street,
`Suite 1600
`Chicago, Illinois 60654
`(312) 517-9227
`jcollins@foxrothschild.com
`
`Counsel for Amici Curiae
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket