Marijuana Policy Project: “A funny thing happened on Monday. The Department of Justice filed a brief regarding state medical marijuana laws in Arizona . . . and it was a good thing, and was met with appreciation from the medical marijuana movement! Seriously. . . . Apparently, the DoJ also thinks Brewer’s claims are ridiculous, and it said as much in its withering Motion to Dismiss brief, in which it took apart each of the state of Arizona’s arguments, urging the court to dismiss the case. . . . Throughout its brief, the DoJ basically said that the state of Arizona has no case and that plaintiffs Gov. Brewer and AG Horne have invented a controversy where none exists. Further, the brief notes that a state is not allowed to bring a case asking two sides to fight it out, without taking a position on the law in question”
Here are some interesting statements made in the Department of Justice’s Motion to Dismiss:
“Plaintiffs identify no controversy between the parties on that issue. That is most clear from the fact that Plaintiffs’ complaint never identifies which side of the supposed dispute Plaintiffs are on. Indeed, even their prayer for relief does not identify whether they believe the AMMA is preempted by federal law. Instead, Plaintiffs attempt to manufacture disputes among theother parties. They name as defendants various individuals and organizations whom Plaintiffs contend support the implementation and enforcement of the AMMA”
“Plaintiffs even create twenty fictitious defendants – ten who contend that the AMMA “does violate federal law” and ten who contend that it does not – and then rely on the purported disagreement ‘among Defendants’.”
“there is no actual controversy herebecause Plaintiffs can point to no threat of enforcement against the State’s employees.”
“Plaintiffs lack standing to raise their claim. As discussed above, Plaintiffs rely on manufactured disputes between various defendants, even referring to one defendant’s ‘standing and legal position’ relative to other defendants.”
“Plaintiffs identify no prior instances in which the federal government hassought to prosecute state employees for the conduct vaguely described in Plaintiffs’complaint. Without evidence of such prior prosecutions, Plaintiffs cannot credibly showa genuine threat of imminent prosecution in this case,”
