The Department of Justice has urged the Supreme Court to deny two workers’ bids for medical cannabis reimbursement. One patient has called for the Supreme Court to reject the “unusually weak arguments”.
Two workers in the US state of Minnesota have been seeking reimbursement from their respective employers for the costs of medical cannabis which was prescribed to them after sustaining injuries at work.
Minnesota’s Supreme Court ruled that employers are not required to reimburse injured workers for medical cannabis as it would result in the organisation breaking federal law. This is the fourth case of its kind in the United States.
Last month, the US Supreme Court asked the Department of Justice (DOJ) to weigh in on the case but the DOJ responded by urging it to steer clear due to the novelty of the issues, while showing support for Minnesota’s verdict.
In an amicus brief filed last month, the DOJ stated: “The judgments […] are correct for the straightforward reason that when a federal law such as the [Controlled Substances Act] prohibits possession of a particular item, it preempts a state law requiring a private party to subsidise the purchase of that item.”
The DOJ also argued that the workers’ compensation order is preempted by federal law because it “stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purpose and objectives of Congress”.
Justin Brandt – a founding partner of the cannabis law firm Bianchi & Brandt – is not convinced by the DOJ’s response.
“The [Department of Justice] conveniently ignores the government’s own policy of non-enforcement, which inherently poses an obstacle to the accomplishment of Congress’s objectives,” Brandt told Cannabis Wealth.
“In other words, the DOJ is speaking out of both sides of its mouth. The government doesn’t want to be in a position where it must explain why it may rely on the Controlled Substances Act to impede state law while at the same time failing to enforce the Controlled Substances Act against those acting in compliance with state cannabis laws.”
One of the patients fighting the case, Susan Musta has a similar opinion, urging the Supreme Court to reject the DOJ’s “unusually weak arguments”. As reported by Law360, Musta hit back at the Biden administration. “The government acknowledges that there is a 2-2 split on a question of national importance,” Musta wrote. “Yet it nonetheless recommends denying certiorari — based on unusually weak arguments that one would never ordinarily see in a government brief.”
While the Department of Justice asserted that it would not be appropriate for the Supreme Court to review the cases due to the nuances of the issues, Brandt believes the DOJ is “dragging its feet” on the issue and its “hands-off approach to cannabis needs to end”.
“The DOJ doesn’t want this case heard by the Supreme Court because it will force the government to address its incoherent approach to cannabis policy. Because of that, the government is forced to make arguments lacking common sense,” Brandt said.
“The petitions in these cases, which present a novel question in a rapidly evolving area of law, do not warrant this Court’s review,” the DOJ stated in last month’s brief. “The judgments below are correct for the straightforward reason that when a federal law such as the [Controlled Substances Act] prohibits possession of a particular item, it preempts a state law requiring a private party to subsidise the purchase of that item.”
Similar cases have been seen in three other states; Maine, New Hampshire and New Jersey. Maine’s top court reached a similar conclusion to Minnesota, ruling that federal law preempts reimbursement for medical cannabis. While New Hampshire and New Jersey found that the Controlled Substances Act did not preempt state law.
“The Minnesota and Maine Supreme Courts relied on “impossibility preemption” in finding that the Controlled Substances Act preempted state law,” Brandt explained. “The courts concluded that the workers’ compensation order was preempted because it would force the employer and insurer to participate in conduct that would violate the Controlled Substances Act.”
The New Hampshire Supreme Court, meanwhile, found that the Controlled Substances Act did not criminalise insurance reimbursement for medical cannabis as employers were compelled to do so by state law. This means it would lack the criminal intent for aiding a federal offence, the court ruled.
The New Jersey Supreme Court also found that the Controlled Substances Act did not preempt state law but the reasoning was slightly different. “It relied on the annual appropriations riders that Congress has enacted since 2014,” Brandt added. “Those riders prohibit the DOJ from using funds to prevent states from implementing medical cannabis laws. The New Jersey Supreme Court concluded that the Controlled Substances Act cannot coexist with the enacted appropriation and thus is effectively suspended.”
