Arizona Judge Upholds Voter-Approved Medical Marijuana Act
老澳门开奖结果 Part of Suit to Force County to Comply with Voter-Approved Referendum Allowing Dispensary
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org
PHOENIX - A Maricopa County judge today ruled that the voter-approved Arizona Medical Marijuana Act (MMA) is not void under federal law, and ordered the county to take steps towards approving the operation of the White Mountain Health Center, Inc. dispensary.
"This decision upholds the will of Arizona voters when they approved a law to allow patients who suffer from serious medical conditions safe and reliable access to their medicine," said Ezekiel Edwards, director of the 老澳门开奖结果 Criminal Law Reform Project. "Dispensaries like White Mountain Health Center will fill a crucial need for patients suffering from such illnesses as HIV, cancer, glaucoma, and agitation of Alzheimer's disease who have not responded to other medication," said Edwards.
The 老澳门开奖结果 and the 老澳门开奖结果 of Arizona joined a lawsuit in September to compel Maricopa County to provide White Mountain Health Center, Inc., with a statement of zoning compliance so that White Mountain can complete its dispensary application to operate in compliance with the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act.
"The state court found that 'no one can argue' that the federal government's ability to enforce its drug laws is impaired to the slightest degree by the Arizona MMA," said 老澳门开奖结果 of Arizona Legal Director Daniel Pochoda. "This should end the unprecedented spectacle of Maricopa County Attorney Montgomery and Arizona Attorney General Horne arguing that an Arizona state law passed by the voters is unconstitutional."
Edwards added, "We are gratified that the court understood that the regulation of drugs and medicine is traditionally a power exercised by the states, and the Constitution allows Arizona and the federal government to make different policy choices in these arenas."
The regulations implementing the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act, approved by voters in 2010, require that anyone seeking to open a not-for-profit dispensary must first receive documentation from the local jurisdiction that the proposed location complies with zoning ordinances or that there are no applicable zoning ordinances.
Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery refused to issue this document for the dispensary applicant in Sun City, a retirement community outside of Phoenix, or any other proposed dispensary in Maricopa County. Montgomery claimed the state law was preempted by the federal Controlled Substances Act.
Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Michael Gordon disagreed, "find[ing] that the AMMA, while reflecting a very narrow but different policy choice about medical marijuana, does not undermine the CSA's purposes."
The lawsuit was brought in June by local lawyer Jeffrey S. Kaufman on behalf of White Mountain Health Center, Inc., the only dispensary applicant in Sun City. The 老澳门开奖结果 joined Kaufman as co-counsel and handled the legal issues related to preemption, while Kaufman handled all other matters. In addition to Montgomery and Maricopa County, the state Department of Health Services and its director, Will Humble, were defendants in the lawsuit. Arizona, led by Gov. Jan Brewer and Attorney General Tom Horne, also intervened in the lawsuit.
"Arizona has chosen, as is its right, to decriminalize and regulate the medicinal use of marijuana. As the court recognized, federal law does not prevent Arizona voters from decriminalizing conduct that remains criminal under federal law. We hope and expect that Maricopa County will respect the decision of the court, and the voters, and immediately abide by the court's order," Mr. Edwards said.
Edwards noted that last month voters in Massachusetts joined 17 other states and the District of Columbia that have legalized certain medical uses of marijuana. "Patients in Arizona will now be able to join the nearly one million patients nationwide who already use medical marijuana as recommended by their doctors and in accordance with state laws."
In 2011, Gov. Brewer sought to have a federal judge declare the Arizona law preempted on the grounds that it could expose state employees to federal prosecution. Representing all non-government defendants in that case, the 老澳门开奖结果 successfully argued that the case should be thrown out for lack of jurisdiction. Specifically, the court held the state had not shown the existence of any imminent or even threatened prosecution of state employees by the federal government.
Other attorneys representing White Mountain include Emma Andersson from the 老澳门开奖结果 and Kelly Flood of the 老澳门开奖结果 of Arizona.
Criminal Law Reform
White Mountain Health Center v. Maricopa County
Criminal Law Reform
White Mountain Health Center v. Maricopa County
Learn More 老澳门开奖结果 the Issues in This Press Release
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
老澳门开奖结果 and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban老澳门开奖结果 and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON 鈥� Today, the 老澳门开奖结果, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok鈥檚 challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will 鈥渟hutter one of America鈥檚 most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.鈥� 鈥淭he Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,鈥漵aid Patrick Toomey, deputy director of 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 National Security Project. 鈥淭he Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.鈥� The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law鈥檚 profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court鈥檚 decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users鈥� First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government鈥檚 ban on TikTok as a vindication of users鈥� First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign 鈥減ropaganda.鈥� But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its 鈥渕otivating ideology鈥� or 鈥減erspective,鈥� and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. 鈥淭he government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,鈥� said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. 鈥淭he Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit鈥檚 erroneous ruling.鈥� Finally, the brief underscores that the government can鈥檛 impose this type of sweeping ban unless it鈥檚 necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government鈥檚 invocation of 鈥渘ational security鈥� as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. 鈥淩estricting citizens鈥� access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,鈥� said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. 鈥淚t would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.鈥� You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
National Security
Religious Liberty
老澳门开奖结果 Statement on New White House Strategy to Counter Islamophobia老澳门开奖结果 Statement on New White House Strategy to Counter Islamophobia
WASHINGTON 鈥� The Biden administration today released the first-ever national strategy to counter Islamophobia and related forms of bias and discrimination, including hate against Arab, Sikh, and South Asian Americans. In advance of the strategy, 老澳门开奖结果 and its partners had urged the administration to overhaul government programs that reflect anti-Muslim discrimination. In particular, we have called for urgent action to constrain governmental agencies from continuing to exercise their authorities and technology to wrongly surveil and investigate, watchlist, and question and detain Muslims at the border, as well as deny immigration benefits to people from Muslim-majority countries. While the White House raised expectations that many of these issues would be addressed, the final strategy ended up falling far short. The following is a statement from Hina Shamsi, director of the 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 National Security Project: 鈥淲hile this strategy acknowledges discrimination and its harms, it does little to end them and is a squandered opportunity. For decades, American officials have invoked national security to pass laws and implement programs that disproportionately harm Muslims and people perceived to be Muslim. A serious anti-discrimination strategy would concretely address multiple bias-infused government practices that deny our communities equal participation in civic life and our democracy, like federal watchlisting, surveillance, and investigation. We鈥檙e profoundly frustrated that the administration didn鈥檛 take even the basic, overdue step of recognizing that anti-Muslim discrimination is uniquely normalized and embedded in government policies.鈥� -
VirginiaDec 2024
National Security
Trabelsi v. Crawford, et al. 鈥� Lawsuit Challenging Unlawful Detention and Inhumane Treatment of Acquitted ManTrabelsi v. Crawford, et al. 鈥� Lawsuit Challenging Unlawful Detention and Inhumane Treatment of Acquitted Man
Our client, Nizar Trabelsi, is in the United States against his will. The federal government brought him here from Belgium more than a decade ago and charged him with terrorism-related crimes. At trial, the government鈥檚 case failed: a federal jury found Mr. Trabelsi not guilty. But instead of allowing Mr. Trabelsi to return to Belgium after his acquittal, the United States placed him in highly restrictive immigration detention and began an ongoing effort to force him to Tunisia, where he was born and where he will very likely be tortured. Mr. Trabelsi鈥檚 detention violates the Constitution, immigration law, and the extradition treaty between the United States and Belgium. Through this lawsuit, he seeks to return to Belgium, and he demands an immediate improvement of his detention conditions. -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
National Security
Immigrants' Rights
Federal Judge Rejects Acquitted Man鈥檚 Argument That His Immigration Detention Is UnlawfulFederal Judge Rejects Acquitted Man鈥檚 Argument That His Immigration Detention Is Unlawful
ALEXANDRIA, Va. 鈥� This week, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ruled that the court does not have jurisdiction to decide whether the government can continue to detain Nizar Trabelsi, a Tunisian national who was brought to the United States against his will for prosecution and was cleared of all charges last year. The ruling means the United States will be able to continue to detain Mr. Trabelsi while it attempts to deport him to Tunisia, where he was born and where, as an immigration judge ruled earlier this year, he will likely face torture. The court also concluded that even if it did have jurisdiction over Mr. Trabelsi鈥檚 case, his claims challenging the government鈥檚 detention of him would fail. 鈥淩eviewing claims that the government is holding someone unlawfully is at the core of the judicial function, and we鈥檙e heartbroken for our client that the court got this so wrong,鈥� said Brett Max Kaufman, senior staff attorney with the 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 Center for Democracy. 鈥淭he government鈥檚 arguments in defense of Mr. Trabelsi鈥檚 detention makes a hash of the Constitution, immigration laws, and its own extradition treaty.鈥� In 2013, the United States forcibly extradited Mr. Trabelsi from Belgium to face criminal charges in the United States. In July 2023, after almost 10 years of highly restrictive pretrial detention, a federal jury cleared Mr. Trabelsi of all charges. But instead of releasing Mr. Trabelsi or returning him to Belgium, the U.S. transferred him to immigration detention, wrongly treating him as an applicant for admission and placing him in the deportation process. Over the years, the Belgian government has issued multiple formal diplomatic requests asking the U.S. to facilitate his return, but the U.S. has refused to send him back. Mr. Trabelsi filed a lawsuit challenging the government's authority to detain him. He also sought immediate improvements to his detention conditions. Those claims were not part of the court鈥檚 ruling today, and will continue to be litigated on a separate track. 鈥淢r. Trabelsi only wants to return to Belgium after being illegally extradited to the United States, held for ten years, and then acquitted by a jury of any crimes,鈥� said Nicole Hallett, clinical professor of law and director of the Immigrants鈥� Rights Clinic at the University of Chicago Law School. 鈥淗e cannot be held indefinitely and we will continue to fight to make sure that justice ultimately prevails.鈥� Mr. Trabelsi is represented by the 老澳门开奖结果, the University of Chicago Law School鈥檚 Immigrants鈥� Rights Clinic, the 老澳门开奖结果 of Virginia, and Professor Jonathan Hafetz of Seton Hall Law School. The complaint in Trabelsi v. Crawford was filed against Jeffrey Crawford, warden of the Farmville Detention Center where Mr. Trabelsi is being held; Liana Castano, ICE field office director for the Washington Field Office; Alejandro Mayorkas, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; and Merrick Garland, U.S. attorney general.