The Office of Legal Affairs has an active litigation practice that includes the direct representation of clients, the drafting and filing of friend-of-the-court (“amicus”) briefs on behalf of Drug Policy Alliance Network and various national and state organizations, and providing legal assistance, advice and funding for attorneys handling important cases for drug law reform.   
 
Current Litigation

City of Santa Cruz v. Ashcroft (“WAMM” case)

The Office currently represents the City and County of Santa Cruz and patients from the Wo/Men's Alliance for Medical Marijuana, a medical marijuana collective based in Santa Cruz, in a case that seeks to enjoin the federal government from any further raids against the Wo/Men's Alliance for Medical Marijuana and patient collectives like WAMM. 
 
The Office of Legal Affairs serves as co-counsel on the WAMM case with Bingham McCutchen, LLP, a corporate law firm with headquarters in San Francisco and Boston, Gerald Uelmen, a Professor of Law at Santa Clara University Law School, and Santa Cruz attorney Ben Rice.  The Plaintiffs filed an initial complaint and request for a Preliminary Injunction in Federal District Court in San Jose in April 2003.  The Plaintiffs argue that medical marijuana patients have the right to control the circumstances of their own pain and ultimately, their deaths, and that the City and County have the right to protect seriously ill and dying residents from federal government attempts to deprive them of the medicine that works best for them.  
 
Read more about Santa Cruz v. Ashcroft

Conant v. Walters

In 1996, the Office of Legal Affairs teamed up with the ACLU Drug Policy Litigation Project and the law firm of Altshuler, Berzon, Nussbaum, Rubin and Demain, to represent California physicians and patients in order to protect the right of physicians to recommend – and patients to receive recommendations for -- medical marijuana.  The lawsuit on behalf of California’s physicians and patients, Conant v. Walters, was a direct response to federal government threats to punish physicians if they recommended medical marijuana to patients following the passage of California's medical marijuana law, Proposition 215, also known as the “Compassionate Use Act.” 
 
In federal district court, the Plaintiffs succeeded in winning a Temporary Restraining Order, then a Preliminary, and ultimately a Permanent Injunction against the federal government, preventing federal officials from threatening to sanction doctors for recommending medical marijuana to patients.  The federal government appealed, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit unanimously upheld the injunction, ruling that the federal government’s threats against doctors violated physicians' free speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.  The Conant case not only preserves the vitality of all state medical marijuana laws that confer protections as a result of physician recommendations or advice, but also represents a victory for physicians across the country who wish to provide their patients with medical advice free from federal government censorship. 
 
Read more about Conant v. Walters

Friend-of-the-Court Briefs

The Office of Legal Affairs has represented numerous prominent public health and medical organizations in friend-of-the-court briefs for state and federal courts throughout the country, including the United States Supreme Court.  These amicus briefs have addressed a wide variety of topics, including:

• Pregnancy and Parenting
• Medical Marijuana
• Access to Methadone Treatment
• Pain Management
• Forced Drugging
• Drug Testing

Legal Assistance

The Office of Legal Affairs provides advice and legal assistance to attorneys across the country on a variety of issues and cases, including access to methadone treatment, the rights of individuals to exchange clean needles, the application of California’s Proposition 36, and the right to use effective pain medications, including medical marijuana.