ACLU Asks Federal Judge to Throw Out Arizona Governor’s Lawsuit Challenging State’s Medical Marijuana Law

Lawsuit Is Affront to Arizona Voters and Impedes Sick People from Accessing Needed Medicine PHOENIX – The American Civil Liberties Union today asked a federal judge to throw out a lawsuit filed in May by Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer that seeks to have her state’s medical marijuana law struck down. In a motion filed today in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, the ACLU charges that the lawsuit should be dismissed because, among other reasons, there has been no threat that state employees charged with carrying out the state’s law would be prosecuted by federal authorities. “On the pretext of protecting her state employees, Gov. Brewer is simply seeking to thwart the will of Arizona’s voters and unconscionably block sick people from accessing their vital medicine,” said Scott Michelman, staff attorney with the ACLU Criminal Law Reform Project. “People should have the freedom to choose the medicine their doctors believe will be most effective for them.” In May, Brewer filed a lawsuit against the Department of Justice, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, U.S. Attorney Dennis Burke and potential dispensary applicants seeking a ruling from a federal court that the law is preempted by federal law and should be struck down. The ACLU, along with the Phoenix law firm Gammage & Burnham, represents the Arizona Medical Marijuana Association (AzMMA), a non-profit, membership-based professional association that seeks to advance the interests of Arizona’s medical marijuana profession and the patients it serves, and that is a named defendant in Brewer’s lawsuit. Brewer’s lawsuit claims that Arizona officials fear federal prosecution for implementing the law, even though Burke said in the days leading up to Brewer filing the lawsuit that the federal government has “no intention of targetinggoing after people who are implementingwho are in compliance with state law.” Brewer’s lawsuit also claims that Arizona’s medical marijuana law is in conflict with the federal Controlled Substances Act. But three appellate court decisions in California have previously rejected claims that California’s medical marijuana law is preempted by federal law. And the Oregon Supreme Court in May backed away from its previous ruling that a part of Oregon’s medical marijuana law is preempted by federal law. A majority of Arizona voters in 2010 passed Proposition 203, which allows terminally and seriously ill patients in Arizona who find relief from marijuana to use it with a doctor’s recommendation. The law allows marijuana to be distributed by tightly regulated clinics to patients with state-issued registry cards and creates penalties for false statements and fraudulent cards. “Gov. Brewer’s efforts to derail Prop 203 are bad for patients and bad for public safety,” said Alessandra Soler Meetze, executive director of the ACLU of Arizona. “This law received broad public support because it was thoughtfully written to give patients access to vital medicine, while at the same time creating a well-regulated system of distribution. By preventing state health officials from doing their jobs, Brewer is actually doing more harm than good and creating chaos in a system sanctioned by Arizona voters.” Along with Michelman, attorneys on the case are Daniel J. Pochoda of the ACLU of Arizona, Lisa T. Hauser and Cameron C. Artigue of Gammage & Burnham, Flagstaff, Ariz. attorney Thomas W. Deene, who represents the Arizona Association of Dispensary Professionals, Inc. and attorneys from the Scottsdale, Ariz.-based Rose Law Group PC, who represent the remainder of the named non-federal defendants in Brewer’s lawsuit. A copy of today’s motion is available online at:

Twitter Follow

Follow us on

Contact Us

ATTORNEY ADVERTISEMENT:  This communication or portions thereof may be considered "advertising" as defined by Section 6157(c) of the California Business and Professions Code or within the jurisdiction in which you are viewing this.  Nothing in the discussion above is intended to be a representation or guarantee about the outcome of any legal proceeding in which you may be involved.  By providing the information above in this format, Michel & Associates is not soliciting you to hire it to handle a specific legal matter you may currently have or be anticipating commencing in the future.  Notwithstanding the discussion above, you should not act or refrain from acting on the basis of any content on this site without seeking appropriate legal advice regarding your particular circumstances from an attorney licensed to practice law.  This communication is informational only and does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Michel & Associates.  Michel & Associates's attorneys are licensed to practice in California, Texas, and the District of Columbia.