Nebraska/Oklahoma vs Colorado weed - do they have a case?

[Baltimore Hokie]

In case you weren't aware: http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/12/u-s-o ... neighbors/

It seems that Nebraska and Oklahoma residents are driving to Colorado, buying a lot of weed, and bringing it home. This has dramatically increased the two states' law enforcement costs. Rather than throw in the towel and legalize it themselves, or increase their drug enforcement budget, their remedy is to have SCOTUS rule Colorado's regulatory framework an unconstitutional violation of the Controlled Substances Act. Not the decriminalization of weed, mind you - just the regulations addressing growth, distribution and taxation. They want Colorado government out of the chain altogether.

History:

Dec 18 2014 Nebraska and Oklahoma file suit against Colorado, directly to the SCOTUS
Mar 27 2015 Brief of respondent Colorado in opposition filed, asking SCOTUS to throw out the case
May 4 2015 The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the Justice Dept.
Dec 16 2015 The Justice Dept. urges SCOTUS to throw out the case

I think NE and OK are tilting at windmills. The states don't have standing to force the Obama administration to enforce the CSA on Colorado. SCOTUS settles border disputes, water rights disputes, etc. It doesn't intervene when one state doesn't like another's regulatory regime. On the contrary, if they are arguing that the CSA needs to be enforced, they are really trying to make the US enforce it - nothing precludes any state from refusing to enforce the CSA.

I can't find one analogous situation where SCOTUS intervened - and neither can NE or OK, who did not cite such a precedent in their initial filing. CO, on the other hand, cited numerous precedents in the other direction.

So tell me why NE and OK have a case here.

[BigDave]

Colorado has gone far beyond refusing to help enforce federal law - the state is openly defying federal law. They are not merely ignoring drug dealers - they are intentionally giving business licenses to them and creating regulations, processes, etc that promote drug dealing businesses.

If I see you steal something and I stand idly by, some may argue I'm at fault but legally I'm not. If I not only see it, but I help you carry it to your car that's a different story.

[Baltimore Hokie]

Colorado has gone far beyond refusing to help enforce federal law - the state is openly defying federal law. They are not merely ignoring drug dealers - they are intentionally giving business licenses to them and creating regulations, processes, etc that promote drug dealing businesses.

If I see you steal something and I stand idly by, some may argue I'm at fault but legally I'm not. If I not only see it, but I help you carry it to your car that's a different story.

To your point - I would agree the state is in risky territory by taking the extra step of regulating and taxing weed as a legitimate business commodity. But only to the extent that the next administration might not be so accommodating.

But I maintain there are very good reasons the current administration, and future ones as well, want to encourage states to experiment with alternative regulatory regimes. They see the writing on the wall - weed is coming off Schedule 1 sooner or later. Weed is being decriminalized by direct referendum. That means the people are voting it in. Weed is being legalized by the people, state by state. When it reaches critical mass, it comes off Schedule 1, with absolutely no political risk (or leadership) involved.

If you try to enforce the CSA in a state where the people have declared it legal, the state will simply check out. The last thing the Fed wants to do is enforce the CSA at the local level without states' help. They did it 15 years ago when much fewer states had legalized it for medical use. They can't afford to do it anymore.

But to MY point - you didn't say whether or not you felt the two states had a case.

[chuckd4vt]

In case you weren't aware: http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/12/u-s-o ... neighbors/

It seems that Nebraska and Oklahoma residents are driving to Colorado, buying a lot of weed, and bringing it home. This has dramatically increased the two states' law enforcement costs. Rather than throw in the towel and legalize it themselves, or increase their drug enforcement budget, their remedy is to have SCOTUS rule Colorado's regulatory framework an unconstitutional violation of the Controlled Substances Act. Not the decriminalization of weed, mind you - just the regulations addressing growth, distribution and taxation. They want Colorado government out of the chain altogether.

History:

Dec 18 2014 Nebraska and Oklahoma file suit against Colorado, directly to the SCOTUS
Mar 27 2015 Brief of respondent Colorado in opposition filed, asking SCOTUS to throw out the case
May 4 2015 The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the Justice Dept.
Dec 16 2015 The Justice Dept. urges SCOTUS to throw out the case

I think NE and OK are tilting at windmills. The states don't have standing to force the Obama administration to enforce the CSA on Colorado. SCOTUS settles border disputes, water rights disputes, etc. It doesn't intervene when one state doesn't like another's regulatory regime. On the contrary, if they are arguing that the CSA needs to be enforced, they are really trying to make the US enforce it - nothing precludes any state from refusing to enforce the CSA.

I can't find one analogous situation where SCOTUS intervened - and neither can NE or OK, who did not cite such a precedent in their initial filing. CO, on the other hand, cited numerous precedents in the other direction.

So tell me why NE and OK have a case here.

So Nebraska and Oklahoma are claiming to be on some moral high horse because they are the ones putting their people in cages?

[Baltimore Hokie]

In case you weren't aware: http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/12/u-s-o ... neighbors/

It seems that Nebraska and Oklahoma residents are driving to Colorado, buying a lot of weed, and bringing it home. This has dramatically increased the two states' law enforcement costs. Rather than throw in the towel and legalize it themselves, or increase their drug enforcement budget, their remedy is to have SCOTUS rule Colorado's regulatory framework an unconstitutional violation of the Controlled Substances Act. Not the decriminalization of weed, mind you - just the regulations addressing growth, distribution and taxation. They want Colorado government out of the chain altogether.

History:

Dec 18 2014 Nebraska and Oklahoma file suit against Colorado, directly to the SCOTUS
Mar 27 2015 Brief of respondent Colorado in opposition filed, asking SCOTUS to throw out the case
May 4 2015 The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the Justice Dept.
Dec 16 2015 The Justice Dept. urges SCOTUS to throw out the case

I think NE and OK are tilting at windmills. The states don't have standing to force the Obama administration to enforce the CSA on Colorado. SCOTUS settles border disputes, water rights disputes, etc. It doesn't intervene when one state doesn't like another's regulatory regime. On the contrary, if they are arguing that the CSA needs to be enforced, they are really trying to make the US enforce it - nothing precludes any state from refusing to enforce the CSA.

I can't find one analogous situation where SCOTUS intervened - and neither can NE or OK, who did not cite such a precedent in their initial filing. CO, on the other hand, cited numerous precedents in the other direction.

So tell me why NE and OK have a case here.

So Nebraska and Oklahoma are claiming to be on some moral high horse because they are the ones putting their people in cages?

Not really, they are obscuring the 'moral' aspect of this in favor of the economic. Their position boils down to: Colorado is generating revenue at our expense. Of course the states have every right to keep weed illegal and jail people for using it. But they budget for enforcement just like everyone else does, and they are tired of CO driving their budgetary requirements.

It occurred to me that we face an analogous situation in Maryland. Delaware does not charge sales tax. There is a large mall in Christiana, very close to the MD-DE border. Guess who shops there. But MD didn't complain - they ensured the toll structure along that stretch of I-95 offset lost tax revenue. Here are the rates:

2-axle $8.00
3-axle $16.00
4-axle $24.00
5-axle $48.00
6-axle+ $60.00

Nebraska can declare all roads leading into Colorado as toll roads from X miles out and charge a hefty toll, one way or two way. Point is, there are ways to offset the increased costs without petitioning SCOTUS to intervene.

[BigDave]

Not really, they are obscuring the 'moral' aspect of this in favor of the economic. Their position boils down to: Colorado is generating revenue at our expense. Of course the states have every right to keep weed illegal and jail people for using it. But they budget for enforcement just like everyone else does, and they are tired of CO driving their budgetary requirements.

It occurred to me that we face an analogous situation in Maryland. Delaware does not charge sales tax. There is a large mall in Christiana, very close to the MD-DE border. Guess who shops there. But MD didn't complain - they ensured the toll structure along that stretch of I-95 offset lost tax revenue. Here are the rates:

2-axle $8.00
3-axle $16.00
4-axle $24.00
5-axle $48.00
6-axle+ $60.00

Nebraska can declare all roads leading into Colorado as toll roads from X miles out and charge a hefty toll, one way or two way. Point is, there are ways to offset the increased costs without petitioning SCOTUS to intervene.

That's not an analogous situation - federal law does not mandate the collection of a sales tax.

[Baltimore Hokie]

Not really, they are obscuring the 'moral' aspect of this in favor of the economic. Their position boils down to: Colorado is generating revenue at our expense. Of course the states have every right to keep weed illegal and jail people for using it. But they budget for enforcement just like everyone else does, and they are tired of CO driving their budgetary requirements.

It occurred to me that we face an analogous situation in Maryland. Delaware does not charge sales tax. There is a large mall in Christiana, very close to the MD-DE border. Guess who shops there. But MD didn't complain - they ensured the toll structure along that stretch of I-95 offset lost tax revenue. Here are the rates:

2-axle $8.00
3-axle $16.00
4-axle $24.00
5-axle $48.00
6-axle+ $60.00

Nebraska can declare all roads leading into Colorado as toll roads from X miles out and charge a hefty toll, one way or two way. Point is, there are ways to offset the increased costs without petitioning SCOTUS to intervene.

That's not an analogous situation - federal law does not mandate the collection of a sales tax.

You keep keying on the CSA as if it was the crux of the issue. It is not. Economics are. If NE and OK weren't exhausting their enforcement budgets arresting weed users, they wouldn't be demanding CO divest its regulatory scheme. No one would. If they really cared about grievous violation of the CSA, NE and OK would have included Washington and Oregon in their lawsuit.