Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Gonzales v. Raich (previously Ashcroft v.Raich), 545 U.S. 1 (2005), was a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that, under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Congress may criminalize the production and use of homegrown cannabis even if state law allows its use for medicinal purposes.
In United States v.Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative, 532 U.S. 483 (2001), the United States Supreme Court rejected the common-law medical necessity defense to crimes enacted under the federal Controlled Substances Act of 1970, [1] regardless of their legal status under the laws of states such as California that recognize a medical use for marijuana. [2]
The U.S. Supreme Court tackled a case on Tuesday involving a New York state man who was fired from his job as a commercial truck driver for failing a drug test after taking cannabidiol, or CBD ...
Brown v. United States, (Docket Nos. 22-6389 and 22–6640), is a United States Supreme Court case about the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). The Supreme Court affirmed both courts of appeals, holding that a state drug conviction counts as an ACCA predicate if it involved a drug on the federal schedules at the time of that conviction.
The Supreme Court agreed Monday to hear an appeal from a CBD hemp oil maker fighting a lawsuit from a truck driver who says he got fired after using a product falsely advertised as being free from ...
A U.S. appeals court on Wednesday ruled that a pot-smoking gun owner in Texas cannot be prosecuted for violating a federal ban on users of illegal drugs owning firearms, saying it is ...
Moncrieffe v. Holder, 569 U.S. 184 (2013), is a United States Supreme Court decision in which the court ruled in a 7–2 decision that "social sharing of a small amount of marijuana" by a legal immigrant does not constitute aggravated felony and so does not require mandatory deportation. [1] [2]
Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court case which resulted in the decision that police use of a trained detection dog to sniff for narcotics on the front porch of a private home is a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and therefore, without consent, requires both probable cause and a search warrant.