{"id":24065,"date":"2018-02-26T17:00:12","date_gmt":"2018-02-27T01:00:12","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/2018\/02\/26\/judge-dismisses-case-challenging-federal-prohibition\/"},"modified":"2018-02-28T12:43:57","modified_gmt":"2018-02-28T20:43:57","slug":"judge-dismisses-case-challenging-federal-prohibition","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/2018\/02\/26\/judge-dismisses-case-challenging-federal-prohibition\/","title":{"rendered":"Judge Dismisses Case Challenging Federal Prohibition"},"content":{"rendered":"<\/p>\n<h4><strong><em>Washington v. Sessions<\/em><\/strong><strong>, a case that challenged marijuana\u2019s status as a Schedule I drug and made national headlines, was dismissed on Feb. 26. The plaintiffs\u2019 lawyers may appeal the dismissal to a higher court, which could set them on a path to the U.S. Supreme Court.<\/strong><\/h4>\n<hr \/>\n<p><span class=\"wpsdcp-drop-cap-default\">A<\/span> decision was handed down today in the landmark <em>Washington v. Session<\/em>s case: Case dismissed.<\/p>\n<p>From the U.S. District Court\u2019s Southern District of New York, the presiding Judge Alvin Hellerstein released his <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scribd.com\/document\/372473690\/Judicial-dismissal-Washington-v-Sessions#from_embed\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">20-page decision<\/a> to dismiss the case on Monday afternoon. \u201cThe defendants\u2019 motion to dismiss the complaint is granted,\u201d he wrote. \u201cThe clerk is instructed to terminate the motion, mark the case as closed.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Plaintiffs Marvin Washington, Dean Bartell, Alexis Bortell, Jose Belen, Sebastien\u00a0Cotte, Jagger Cotte and the Cannabis Cultural Association had <a href=\"https:\/\/mjbizdaily.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/07\/ECF-Version-of-Complaint.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">filed their complaint<\/a> against the federal government on July 24, 2017. Oral arguments <a href=\"https:\/\/cannabisnow.com\/oral-arguments-heard-lawsuit-jeff-sessionss-pot-prohibition\/\">were heard<\/a> on Feb. 14.<\/p>\n<p>With Judge Hellerstein\u2019s ruling, the plaintiffs\u2019 <a href=\"https:\/\/cannabisnow.com\/suing-safe-access-cannabis-prohibition-going-trial\/\">bid to constitutionally challenge<\/a> the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), which classifies marijuana as a Schedule I drug, has officially failed this round.<\/p>\n<p>Despite the fact that the case was dismissed, it still was able to bring publicity to the federal cannabis movement, highlighting citizens with genuine afflictions that cannot get the relief they readily deserve and which<a href=\"https:\/\/www.epilepsy.com\/learn\/treating-seizures-and-epilepsy\/other-treatment-approaches\/medical-marijuana-and-epilepsy\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"> is proven<\/a> to work for them. The plaintiffs included Bortell, who is a 12-year-old girl suffering from epilepsy, and Washington, who is a former NFL player.<\/p>\n<p>Judge Hellerstein\u2019s ruling to dismiss <em>Washington v. Sessions<\/em> was based on several grounds, specifically that the Controlled Substances Act did not impede the First Amendment rights and the \u201cright to travel\u201d of the plaintiffs, which was what their lawyers were arguing. Judge Hellerstein ruled that, while the First Amendment protects the plaintiffs\u2019 right to travel within a state, it did not apply to federal law or the Controlled Substances Act.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cUnfortunately, Alexis Bortell\u2019s medical condition was deemed by Judge Hellerstein to be beyond redress in this particular challenge,\u201d said attorney David Holland, who was representing the plaintiffs. \u201cHellerstein has sided with courts which have found that there is no fundamental right to use medical cannabis for a health condition. Therefore, her bodily integrity claim is not cognizable by the court.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Bortell will remain a medical marijuana refugee, who cannot return home with her medicine until it is available in the state of Texas. Sufferers of <a href=\"https:\/\/cannabisnow.com\/tag\/ptsd\/\">PTSD<\/a>, such as plaintiff Jose Belen, are subject to further trauma, if they are arrested for traveling with their medicine.<\/p>\n<p>Another significant factor of the ruling to dismiss the case was that Judge Hellerstein believes that civil litigants should have first petitioned the FDA to reschedule cannabis. He suggested that only after petitioning the FDA could relief be sought in the courts, as described and set forth in the CSA.<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Essentially, Hellerstein seems to have passed the buck, rather than take the opportunity to correct the outdated Controlled Substances Act, according to several lawyers who spoke with Cannabis Now.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>A third significant issue discussed by Judge Hellertstein was that he believed that the racial animus of President Nixon could not be attributed to Congress, which drafted the CSA and determined the initial scheduling of cannabis. This point came in response to the argument put forth by the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.cannacultural.org\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Cannabis Cultural Association<\/a>, represented by their board member Joseph Bondy, who was arguing that the Controlled Substances Act has been enforced more strongly against communities of color.<\/p>\n<p>(In a twist of irony, at the same time that Judge Hellerstein\u2019s court clerk was filing his ruling, a New York City Council hearing down the street <a href=\"http:\/\/legistar.council.nyc.gov\/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=593243&amp;GUID=026A8759-3483-4DC6-BD2A-B8CD4396B412&amp;\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">was simultaneously reviewing<\/a> racial disparities in the city\u2019s marijuana arrests.)<\/p>\n<p>Despite the ruling, the plaintiffs\u2019 lawyer Holland expressed appreciation for his colleagues.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cWhile this has been a disappointing set back to the battle to reschedule, great kudos is due to our litigation team,\u201d he told Cannabis Now. \u201cWe were able to bring this battle into the mainstream conversation where the general public was able to identify with the suffering of many of these plaintiffs and empathized with efforts to seek simple, safe, effective medical relief.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>They may have lost this battle, but the war continues. There is a path forward for the plaintiffs, which is to take this matter up on appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. It is doubtful that they will attempt to file a petition to reschedule with the FDA, given the futility of such an undertaking as proven by many litigators before them.<\/p>\n<p>This ruling does not set precedent for other cannabis cases, because it follows in the footsteps of previous cases that have established the legal basis for a judge ruling against cannabis rescheduling.<\/p>\n<p>It is likely the case will be eventually be appealed to a higher court, where it may potentially require a ruling from the United States Supreme Court.<\/p>\n<p><strong>TELL US,<\/strong> do you think the judge should have dismissed <em>Washington v. Sessions<\/em>?<\/p>\n<p>The post <a rel=\"nofollow\" href=\"https:\/\/cannabisnow.com\/judge-dismisses-case-challenging-federal-prohibition\/\">Judge Dismisses Case Challenging Federal Prohibition<\/a> appeared first on <a rel=\"nofollow\" href=\"https:\/\/cannabisnow.com\">Cannabis Now<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p>&#013;<br \/>\n&#013;<br \/>\nRead More: <a href=\"https:\/\/cannabisnow.com\/judge-dismisses-case-challenging-federal-prohibition\/\" target=\"_blank\">Judge Dismisses Case Challenging Federal Prohibition<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Washington v. Sessions, a case that challenged marijuana\u2019s status as a Schedule I drug and made national headlines, was dismissed on Feb. 26. The plaintiffs\u2019 lawyers may appeal the dismissal to a higher court, which could set them on a path to the U.S. Supreme Court. A decision was handed<span class=\"more-link\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/2018\/02\/26\/judge-dismisses-case-challenging-federal-prohibition\/\">Continue Reading<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":183,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"false","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[50,80,1534,81,978,3493],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24065"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/183"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=24065"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24065\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":24066,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24065\/revisions\/24066"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=24065"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=24065"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=24065"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}