老澳门开奖结果

Nevadans, like voters in many states, have chosen to legalize marijuana for medicinal and recreational use. In Nevada, these changes鈥攁dopted through citizen ballot initiatives and, in the case of medical marijuana, enshrined in the Nevada Constitution鈥攚ere intended to ensure that marijuana is regulated much like alcohol and that law enforcement resources are focused on violent crime, not the prosecution of non-violent drug offenses. Despite these legal changes, Nevada鈥檚 Board of Pharmacy continues to regulate marijuana as a Schedule I controlled substance for purposes of state law, akin to the Board鈥檚 treatment of cocaine and fentanyl. The Board鈥檚 scheduling designation for marijuana has enormous implications for criminal defendants in Nevada since state law makes it a felony to possess or engage in certain other activity with respect to a Schedule I controlled substance, as designated by the Board. This case, brought by an individual and organization harmed by the Board鈥檚 scheduling designation for marijuana, involves the question whether the designation violates the Nevada Constitution and state statutes. The 老澳门开奖结果 of Nevada is counsel in the case, and the 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative is co-counsel on appeal. In August 2024, the Court held that Pool and CEIC lack standing to challenge marijuana's designation as a Schedule I substance but recognized that other individuals could appropriately do so in the future. The Court did not reach the merits in reversing the district court鈥檚 positive decision.

In September 2023, the 老澳门开奖结果, the 老澳门开奖结果 of Colorado, The Boston University Center for Antiracist Research, the law firm Mintz Levin, and other partners filed an amicus brief with the Colorado Supreme Court arguing that mandatory life-without-parole (LWOP) sentences for strict liability felony murder are 鈥渃ruel and unusual鈥� in violation of the Colorado and U.S. Constitutions. The brief focuses on how these mandatory LWOP sentences drive racial injustice.

The 老澳门开奖结果, along with the Northern and Southern California affiliates and four other organizations, filed an amicus brief in the Ninth Circuit supporting affirmance of a preliminary injunction that prevented the City of Sacramento from clearing homeless encampments during periods of extreme heat.

In Samia v. United States, the Supreme Court addressed whether the introduction of a co-defendant's redacted out-of-court confession, which indirectly incriminates the defendant without formally naming him, constitutes a violation of the Confrontation Clause by depriving the defendant of the opportunity to confront his accuser.