WASHINGTON, DC — The US Supreme Court Monday declined to hear an appeal from medical marijuana advocacy groups who had challenged the DEA’s decision to maintain marijuana’s status as a Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substances Act, the category reserved for the most dangerous substances. The court denied in summary order a petition for a writ […]
Read US Supreme Court Rejects Marijuana Reclassification Appeal in its entirety on The Daily Chronic.
Want to stay up to date on marijuana reform & cannabis news worldwide? Visit The Daily Chronic - The Voice of the Reform Generation, the most comprehensive coverage of the cannabis community!READ MORE
WASHINGTON, DC — The organizations and individuals behind a decade-long effort to reschedule marijuana out of the Controlled Substance Act’s (CSA) Schedule I have now complied with a vow they made when the DEA’s decision to reject the effort was upheld by a federal appeals court in Washington.
Filing the writ does not mean the Supreme Court will decide to take up the case. The high court receives thousands of such appeals each session, but actually decides to hear only a tiny percentage of them. This writ, however, has two things going for it: It is on the paid certiorari docket (most are not) and it argues that the Supreme Court needs to resolve conflicts between federal appellate courts.
With the appeal, petitioners are challenging what they call an unreasonable and unprecedented standard for proof of medical efficacy of marijuana set by the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld the DEA’s denial of the petition..
“To deny that sufficient evidence is lacking on the medical efficacy of marijuana is to ignore a mountain of w. . . . . READ MORE
WASHINGTON, DC — The US Supreme Court Monday dealt a blow to mandatory minimum sentencing, ruling that any facts used to trigger a mandatory minimum sentence are “elements” of the crime and must be proven by a jury, not left to a judge. The 5-4 ruling came in Alleyne v. United States.
Until Monday’s ruling, judges had been able to find certain facts that would trigger mandatory minimum sentences, such as quantities of drugs involved in an offense, based on a “preponderance of evidence” in post-conviction sentencing hearings. Now, those facts will have to established by juries in the course of the trial using the higher standard of proof “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
The case is the latest in a line of cases that began with the groundbreaking 2000 Supreme Court decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, which held that any fact that increases the range of punishments is an “element” of the crime and must be presented to a jury and proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Sentencing reform advocates were pleased by the ruling.
“Mandatory minimums for drug offenders will lessen, but it’s difficult to say to what . . . . . READ MORE