United States v. White Plume
United States District Court for the District of South Dakota
2016 WL 1228585 (2016)
- Written by Salina Kennedy, JD
Facts
Alexander White Plume (defendant), a member of the Oglala Sioux Tribe, grew industrial hemp on tribal lands. The United States (the government) filed a declaratory judgment action against White Plume seeking a declaration that White Plume was manufacturing and distributing marijuana in violation of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). The government also sought a permanent injunction against White Plume growing marijuana on tribal land. White Plume counterclaimed, arguing that, although both drug marijuana and industrial hemp originated from the Cannabis sativa L. plant, industrial hemp was not marijuana and was therefore exempt from the CSA. In 2004, the United States District Court for the District of South Dakota permanently enjoined White Plume from cultivating any form of Cannabis sativa L. without a valid DEA registration. In 2015, White Plume filed a motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 60(b) seeking to vacate the permanent injunction. In support of his motion, White Plume cited changes in federal and state drug policy. After determining that White Plume’s motion was timely, the United States District Court for the District of South Dakota considered the motion’s merits.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Viken, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.