From our private database of 35,400+ case briefs...
United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Cooperative
United States Supreme Court
532 U.S. 483, 121 S.Ct. 1711, 149 L.Ed.2d 722 (2001)
The Controlled Substances Act (the Act), 21 U.S.C. § 801 et seq., forbids the manufacture and distribution of certain drugs, including marijuana. The statute categorizes drugs under five schedules and imposes restrictions on each substance according to its schedule classification. A substance will only be included in schedule I if the substance has no currently accepted medical use. For marijuana and other schedule I drugs, the only exception to the restrictions is for government-approved research projects. In 1996, California voters passed the Compassionate Use Act, which established an exception to California’s prohibitions on marijuana possession and cultivation for a patient’s medical purposes as approved by a physician. In response, Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Cooperative (Cooperative) (defendant) organized a medical-cannabis dispensary to serve eligible patients. The United States sued the Cooperative, seeking to enjoin the Cooperative from distributing and manufacturing marijuana. The government argued that the Cooperative’s activities violated the Act. The district court granted the injunction, but the Cooperative continued to distribute marijuana. The government initiated contempt proceedings. The Cooperative defended itself on the ground that the distributions were medically necessary, requesting modification of the injunction to include a medical-necessity exemption. The district court denied the motion and held the Cooperative in contempt after finding insufficient evidence that each patient was in actual danger of imminent harm without the drug. The court then modified the injunction, empowering the government to seize the Cooperative’s property. The Cooperative appealed but later voluntarily mooted the contempt proceeding by promising compliance with the initial injunction. A live controversy still existed in the court’s denial of the Cooperative’s motion to amend the injunction, and the court of appeals considered the merits of the issue and reversed, holding that medical necessity was a legally cognizable defense under the circumstances. The case was remanded to the district court to consider the criteria for a medical-necessity exemption. The district court subsequently granted the Cooperative’s motion to modify the injunction to incorporate a medical-necessity defense. The government petitioned for a writ of certiorari to review the court of appeal’s decision. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Thomas, J.)
Concurrence (Stevens, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 617,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 617,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 35,400 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.