June 28 (UPI) — Federal regulations on marijuana may “no longer be necessary” as individual states enact their own laws on its use and sale, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in an opinion Monday.
Thomas, one of the high court’s most conservative justices, cited what he called the federal government’s “half-in, half-out” approach that “simultaneously tolerates and forbids local use of marijuana” and concludes that federal pot laws and policies may now be obsolete.
“A prohibition on intrastate use or cultivation of marijuana may no longer be necessary or proper to support the federal government’s piecemeal approach,” he wrote in dismissing the appeal of a Colorado medical marijuana dispensary that was denied federal tax breaks.
In the case, Standing Akimbo vs. United States, the dispensary argued that it is prohibited by the Internal Revenue Service from deducting certain business expenses — as other businesses are allowed — even though it operates in Colorado, where marijuana use is legal.
The reason is an IRS public policy provision that bars such deductions for companies dealing in controlled substances.
With 36 states now legally allowing marijuana for medical use and 18 for recreational use, Thomas wrote that the case illustrates a growing disconnect between federal and state laws.
Since the Supreme Court upheld federal marijuana laws in 2005, Thomas said the legal landscape has greatly changed. Further, he said, the Justice Department since 2009 has declined to intrude on state legalization efforts or prosecute those who comply with state laws.
DISCLAIMER This post may contain re-posted content, opinions, comments, ads, third party posts, outdated information, posts from disgruntled persons, posts from those with agendas and general internet BS. Therefore…Before you believe anything on the internet regarding anything – do your research on Official Government and State Sites, Call the Michigan State Police, Check the State Attorney General Website and Consult an Attorney – Use Your Brain.
A federal judge in Detroit heard arguments Thursday in a legal battle that has halted the processing of applications for recreational marijuana businesses in the city.
U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman last month ordered Detroit to temporarily stop processing applications amid a lawsuit that argues a provision of a new ordinance regulating recreational pot operations gives unfair preference to longtime residents deemed legacy Detroiters.
Friedman granted the preliminary injunction in favor of Crystal Lowe, a resident and prospective marijuana business operator, who sued the city over the ordinance on claims the law is “discriminatory” and limits her chances.
Lowe’s attorney Kevin Blair argued to the judge Thursday that the ordinance is a penalty for people, like Lowe, who temporarily moved out of the city and it does nothing to help “folks who have been disproportionally affected by the war on drugs.”
CRIMINAL DEFENSE Komorn Law has the experience and history of providing results-focused legal defense to clients in marijuana, drugged driving, DUI, criminal charges, as well as many other case types. From the first encounter with law enforcement to districts courts all the way to the supreme court.
CANNABIS BUSINESS LICENSING AND LEGAL COUNSEL If you are starting or have an established Cannabis Business in Michigan. Komorn Law has the legal team you will need. With a 100% success rate in licensing our firm offers legal counsel services with connections and assets in the world’s leading and most refined cannabis industry network.
Call our Office 248-357-2550
“The city has stated they’re purposely restricting to allow ‘naïve and unsophisticated’ legacy applicants to get ahead,” Blair told Friedman.
Emily Palacios, an Ann Arbor-based attorney representing the city, countered Blair has failed to demonstrate how the ordinance provisions violate Lowe’s equal protection rights under the Michigan Constitution.
The ordinance, Palacios told the judge, only gives preference in the order in which applications are certified and it gives a boost to Detroiters who would be disadvantaged.
“The city’s licensing program is not causing residents and nonresidents to face-off in direct competition,” Palacios argued to Friedman. “The city has constructed a program by which there are two sets of licenses available; 50% of the licenses are going to go to Detroit legacy applicants and 50% to non-Detroit legacy applicants. Their opportunity to compete is equal on both sides of the ledger.”
DISCLAIMER This post may contain re-posted content, opinions, comments, ads, third party posts, outdated information, posts from disgruntled persons, posts from those with agendas and general internet BS. Therefore…Before you believe anything on the internet regarding anything – do your research on Official Government and State Sites, Call the Michigan State Police, Check the State Attorney General Website and Consult an Attorney – Use Your Brain.
Lawmakers in Mexico Fail To Legalize Marijuana Ahead Of Supreme Court Deadline to end marijuana prohibition after spending months going back and forth on a legalization bill that passed both chambers of Congress in differing forms.
The result is a lot of uncertainty. The court first deemed prohibition unconstitutional in 2018, ordering legislators to enact a policy change. While there has been progress in drafting and advancing legalization legislation in the years since. Senators have repeatedly requested deadline extensions that the court granted.
This session it appeared like the reform may finally be achieved. The Senate approved a legalization bill late last year, and then the Chamber of Deputies made revisions and passed it in March, sending it back to the originating chamber. A couple of Senate committees then took up and cleared the amended measure, but leaders quickly started signaling that certain revisions made the proposal unworkable.
Hoy vence el periodo de sesiones y con él la prórroga de la @scjnmexico para regular la cannabis. @ricardomonreal ahora señala que se pueden ir a periodo extraordinario para regresar los cambios a @mx_diputado. #NoMásPrórrogaspic.twitter.com/V1hJqmsQqK
DISCLAIMER This post may contain re-posted content, opinions, comments, ads, third party posts, outdated information, posts from disgruntled persons, posts from those with agendas and general internet BS. Therefore…Before you believe anything on the internet regarding anything – do your research on Official Government and State Sites, Call the Michigan State Police, Check the State Attorney General Website and Consult an Attorney – Use Your Brain.
Executive orders are directives written by the president to officials within the executive branch requiring them to take or stop some action related to policy or management. They are numbered, published in the Federal Register, and cite the authority by which the president is making the order.[1][2]
Presidential memoranda are similar to executive orders, but they are neither numbered nor have the same publication requirements. The Office of Management and Budget is also not required to issue a budgetary impact statement on the subject of the memoranda.[3]
In the wake of unrest during 2020, questions have come to light with regard to how the existing qualified immunity law regulates the conduct of local police officers and political officials.
Qualified immunity is a judicially created doctrine sheltering public officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability. The doctrine plays a role in the defense of civil rights lawsuits against federal law enforcement officials under the Bivens doctrine and against state and local police under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Section 1983).
The doctrine is very favorable to states and local governments. “Clearly established” means that, at the time of the official’s conduct, the law was sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would understand that what he or she is doing is unconstitutional. According to the Supreme Court, qualified immunity protects all except the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.
The Supreme Court has offered multiple justifications for qualified immunity, including that it encourages government officials to “unflinching[ly] discharge . . . their duties” without worrying about being sued for actions a court has not yet held violate the constitution.
With regard to its role in civil lawsuits concerning violations of constitutional norms regulating the police, defenders of the doctrine have suggested that qualified immunity plays an important role in affording police officers some level of deference when making split-second decisions about whether to, for example, use force to subdue a fleeing or resisting suspect.
The Supreme Court has observed that qualified immunity balances two important interests—“the need to hold public officials accountable when they exercise power irresponsibly and the need to shield officials from harassment, distraction, and liability when they perform their duties reasonably.”
The immunity’s broad protection is intended for “all but the plainly incompetentor those who knowingly violate the law” and to give government officials “breathing room” to make reasonable mistakes of fact and law.
According to the Supreme Court, the “driving force” behind qualified immunity was to ensure that “insubstantial claims” against government officials were resolved at the outset of the lawsuit.
Qualified immunity, when applied, provides immunity not only from civil damages, but from having to defend liability altogether.
Courts apply a two-part analysis when determining whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity:
(1) whether the facts alleged by the plaintiff amount to a constitutional violation, and
(2) if so, whether the constitutional right was “clearly established” at the time of the misconduct.
Recent Supreme Court precedent provides flexibility in applying this standard, granting courts the discretion to decide which prong to first address in light of the circumstances of the facts of the case at hand. Whether a right is clearly established depends on whether “the contours of a right are sufficiently clear” so that every “reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that right.”
When conducting this analysis, courts look to see whether it is “beyond debate” that existing legal precedent establishes the illegality of the conduct.” Qualified immunity is available for local and state government officials such as, for example, law enforcement officers, teachers, or social workers.
Federal officials who face liability in cases brought under the Bivens doctrine—which allows for individuals to recover for the deprivation of constitutional rights against federal officials in a few, limited circumstances—may also claim qualified immunity.
Critics of the doctrine have questioned its legal origins and have argued that its practice has provided too much deference to the police at the expense of accountability and the erosion of criminal suspects’ constitutional rights.
Is Qualified Immunity Coming to an End State by State?
States are starting to eliminate qualified immunity. It first started in Colorado and now the Governor Governor Lujan Grisham of New Mexico has signed legislation to end it becoming the second state to do so.
SANTA FE, NM (April 7, 2021) – Today, New Mexico became the second state in the nation to abolish qualified immunity. Governor Lujan Grisham signed the New Mexico Civil Rights Act into law.
In addition to eliminating qualified immunity, this historic legislation will allow New Mexicans – including the wrongfully convicted – to recover damages from the government when their constitutional rights are violated while also providing incentives for government employees to respect and uphold constitutional rights.
DISCLAIMER This post may contain re-posted content, opinions, comments, ads, third party posts, outdated information, posts from disgruntled persons, posts from those with agendas and general internet BS. Therefore…Before you believe anything on the internet regarding anything do your research on Official Government and State Sites, Call the Michigan State Police, Check the State Attorney General Website and Consult an Attorney.
