The facts and the holding of US v. Oakland Cannabis Buyer’s Club (OCBC) are very limited and therefore very important to understand. The OCBC attempted to invoke the common law medical necessity defense to override the express prohibition of the Controlled Substance Act (CSA) of the manufacturing and distribution of marijuana.

The Supreme Court held that there is no medical necessity exception for the manufacture and distribution of marijuana based on the CSA. The Court reasoned, among other things, that distributors of medical marijuana, like the Oakland Cooperative, do not fit into the class of people covered by the federal common law medical necessity defense.

In a special concurrence, one of the justices made clear that Court’s 8-0 decision was limited to this narrow question. The Court made clear that they were not ruling on the medical necessity defense as it pertained to medical marijuana patients.

The other relevant fact of this case is that the case reached the Supreme Court on an appeal of a finding of contempt against the OCBC due to its failure to comply with a preliminary injunction. Therefore, a critical issue in the case was a federal court’s discretion with regards to the use of injunctive relief. While the court made clear that the intent of Congress should be used by the federal court in weighing injunctive relief, the district court maintains a fair amount of discretion regarding how it wishes to fashion injunctive relief.

In June of 2002, on remand from the US Supreme Court, a permanent injunction was imposed on the OCBC by a federal judge in the northern district of California (link to opinion – link can be found off OCBC web site). While this ruling has the unfortunate effect of permitting federal enforcement of the CSA against cannabis buyer’s clubs in California and the 8 other states that have legalized medical marijuana, it is also worth noting that very few cannabis clubs have been shuttered by the federal government. The short-term loss of the medical necessity defense to the CSA has also sparked a renewed effort to lobby the US Congress to reschedule marijuana; the Schedule I classification for marijuana fails to recognized the 30 years of science and experience in the intervening years that repeatedly confirms the medical utility and necessity of marijuana.

Looking Ahead:

While the OCBC case places cannabis buyers clubs under threat of federal injunction to desist the manufacture and distribution of medical marijuana, California’s Compassionate Use Act of 1996 and the similar acts in Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Oregon, and Washington continue to help many seriously ill patients obtain, possess and use medical marijuana free from government interference. 

Some promising examples of medical marijuana progress in California:

• Senate Bill 420 – expected to pass in 2003.  This bill, created by a task force convened by California Attorney General Bill Lockyer, is a thoughtful bill allowing local counties flexibility in the provision of ID cards and other devices to ensure proper legal compliance with the Compassionate Use Act. This act is supported by the California District Attorneys Association and other representatives of the public health and criminal justice systems.
• San Mateo County’s medical marijuana study with Dr. Israelsk.
• San Francisco County’s ID card system.
• San Diego County’s Task Force addressing ID cards and other approaches to helping its medical marijuana patients.

Related Documents

Supreme Court Decision in United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative Supreme Court Opinion

Drug Policy Alliance Amicus Brief: Medical Argument

Friend of the Court Brief, Oakland Cannabis Buyer's Cooperative Case, Federalism argument

Complaint (Raich v. Ashcroft)  , Raich v. Ashcroft, Complaint for Declaratory Relief and for Preliminary and Permanent Injunctive Relief (N. Dist. Cal. filed Oct. 9, 2002)

Plaintiff's Memo of Law in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction,  Raich v. Ashcroft, Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction (N. Dist. Cal. filed Oct. 9, 2002)

Declaration of Angel McClary Raich, Raich v. Ashcroft, Declaration of Angel McClary Raich (N. Dist. Cal. filed Oct. 9, 2002)

Declaration of Frank Henry Lucido, M.D., Raich v. Ashcroft, Declaration of Frank Henry Lucido, M.D. (N. Dist. Cal. filed Oct. 9, 2002)

Declaration of Diane Monson, Raich v. Ashcroft, Declaration of Diane Monson (N. Dist. Cal. filed Oct. 9, 2002)

Declaration of Dr. John Rose, Raich v. Ashcroft, Declaration of Dr. John Rose (N. Dist. Cal. filed Oct. 9, 2002)

Schaffer Drug Library collection of legal documents related to this case