Alabama Joins with Louisiana and Mississippi to Defend Federalism in Medical Marijuana Case

Alabama has joined with Louisiana and Mississippi to file a friend of the court briefing for the respondents in Ashcroft v. Raich, the medical marijuana case that will be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court beginning today. The full brief can be viewed (in .pdf format) here. Here are some excerpts:

The Court should make no mistake: The States of Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi do not appear here to champion (or even to defend) the public policies underlying California's so-called "compassionate use" law. As a matter of drug-control policy, the amici States are basically with the Federal Government on this one.

From the amici States' perspective, however, this is not a case about drug-control policy or fundamental rights. This is a case about "our federalism," which "requires that Congress treat the States in a manner consistent with their status as residuary sovereigns and joint participants in the governance of the Nation." The Government apparently does not view the federalism issue in this case as a serious one. ("It is clear that Congress has the authority ...."). We respectfully disagree. And, just as individual States have intervened to challenge laudatory (and popular) congressional statutes on federalism grounds before, the amici States perceive a need to do so here.

While the amici States may not see eye to eye with some of their neighbors concerning the wisdom of decriminalizing marijuana possession and use in certain instances, they support their neighbors' prerogative in our federalist system to serve as "laboratories for experimentation." As Justice Brandeis famously remarked, "[i]t is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country." Whether California and the other compassionate-use States are "courageous" – or instead profoundly misguided – is not the point. The point is that, as a sovereign member of the federal union, California is entitled to make for itself the tough policy choices that affect its citizens. By stepping in here, under the guise of regulating interstate commerce, to stymie California's "experiment[]," Congress crossed the constitutional line.

Well said. Alabama Attorney General Troy King and Solicitor General Kevin Newsom should be commended for standing with California on this one.