Drug Law Reform
Cannabis Equity & Inclusion Community v. Nevada Board of Pharmacy
Nevadans, like voters in many states, have chosen to legalize marijuana for medicinal and recreational use. In Nevada, these changes—adopted through citizen ballot initiatives and, in the case of medical marijuana, enshrined in the Nevada Constitution—were 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’s Board of Pharmacy continues to regulate marijuana as a Schedule I controlled substance for purposes of state law, akin to the Board’s treatment of cocaine and fentanyl. The Board’s 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’s scheduling designation for marijuana, involves the question whether the designation violates the Nevada Constitution and state statutes. The ÀÏ°ÄÃÅ¿ª½±½á¹û of Nevada is counsel in the case, and the ÀÏ°ÄÃÅ¿ª½±½á¹û’s 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’s positive decision.
Status: Closed
View Case
Learn ÀÏ°ÄÃÅ¿ª½±½á¹û Drug Law Reform
All Cases
10 Drug Law Reform Cases
U.S. Supreme Court
Dec 2021
Drug Law Reform
Birt v. United States
Whether all individuals sentenced for crack cocaine offenses under a now-amended federal statute that created a 100-to-1 disparity between the treatment of cocaine in its crack and powder forms are eligible for resentencing under amendments made by the First Step Act of 2018.
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
Dec 2021
Drug Law Reform
Birt v. United States
Whether all individuals sentenced for crack cocaine offenses under a now-amended federal statute that created a 100-to-1 disparity between the treatment of cocaine in its crack and powder forms are eligible for resentencing under amendments made by the First Step Act of 2018.
U.S. Supreme Court
Dec 2021
Drug Law Reform
Terry v. United States
Whether all individuals sentenced for crack cocaine offenses under a now-amended federal statute that created a 100-to-1 disparity between the treatment of cocaine in its crack and powder forms are eligible for resentencing under amendments made by the First Step Act of 2018.
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
Dec 2021
Drug Law Reform
Terry v. United States
Whether all individuals sentenced for crack cocaine offenses under a now-amended federal statute that created a 100-to-1 disparity between the treatment of cocaine in its crack and powder forms are eligible for resentencing under amendments made by the First Step Act of 2018.
Arizona
Dec 2016
Drug Law Reform
White Mountain Health Center v. Maricopa County
Update: In December 2016, the Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s 2012 ruling that federal marijuana prohibition does not void Arizona’s Medical Marijuana Act and that the County and State should therefore allow the White Mountain dispensary to continue operating and providing medicine to qualifying patients in Arizona with debilitating medical conditions.
Explore case
Arizona
Dec 2016
Drug Law Reform
White Mountain Health Center v. Maricopa County
Update: In December 2016, the Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s 2012 ruling that federal marijuana prohibition does not void Arizona’s Medical Marijuana Act and that the County and State should therefore allow the White Mountain dispensary to continue operating and providing medicine to qualifying patients in Arizona with debilitating medical conditions.
U.S. Supreme Court
Feb 2016
Drug Law Reform
Criminal Law Reform
Utah v. Strieff
Whether the prosecution may use evidence seized after an arrest on an outstanding warrant that was only discovered after an unconstitutional stop.
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
Feb 2016
Drug Law Reform
Criminal Law Reform
Utah v. Strieff
Whether the prosecution may use evidence seized after an arrest on an outstanding warrant that was only discovered after an unconstitutional stop.