On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a proposed lawsuit by which Nebraska and Oklahoma had hoped to challenge Colorado’s legalization of marijuana. The vote was 6-2, with Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissenting.
This was one in a series of lawsuits filed by opponents of legalized pot. And while so far they have largely failed, by their tone and nature they suggest their backers are sore losers who simply do not agree with what Colorado voters did in passing Amendment 64 in 2012.
As The Denver Post reported, a federal court in February dismissed another lawsuit against Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper brought by six Colorado sheriffs and joined by sheriffs and prosecutors from Kansas and Nebraska. The lawsuit sought to close this state’s recreational marijuana shops and overturn Amendment 64. It was the plaintiff’s contention that Colorado’s legalization of marijuana was illegal, unconstitutional and imposed a burden on neighboring states.
The sheriffs complained that by legalizing recreational pot, Colorado puts local law enforcement officers in the position of violating federal law. As in the Supreme Court case, the other states claimed that by increasing the flow of marijuana into their states, Colorado is adding to their costs for police, courts and jails.
But local law enforcement agencies are not tasked with enforcing federal law, and when asked, they have resisted. And if Kansas and Nebraska are seeing higher costs from busting people coming out of Colorado, the answer is not to deprive Colorado taxpayers of tax revenue.
Also on Monday, a U.S. district judge dismissed a lawsuit filed by Pueblo County ranchers under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. They claimed that a marijuana growing facility spoiled their view and their plans to build a house.
But who takes what amounts to a zoning dispute to federal court? And why the allegations of racketeering? The answer is the Safe Streets Alliance, an organization based in Washington, D.C., that opposes marijuana legalization and has been behind most of these lawsuits. And with that, the group may have found a tactic with some potential.
Another RICO lawsuit was dismissed in December – but only after a pot shop closed and two businesses that had worked with it settled. The Holiday Inn in Frisco had sued to prevent a marijuana store from opening nearby. The hotel’s owners also sued a bank, a bonding company and an accounting firm, claiming that anyone who does business with pot sellers is liable under RICO.
A legal scholar told the Post that the lawsuit was unlikely to have been successful at trial. Nonetheless, the bank washed its hands of all the pot shop’s business and the two other firms coughed up $70,000. The marijuana seller closed.
U.S. Rep. Jared Polis, D-Boulder, told the Post the sheriffs’ lawsuit was “a silly attempt to circumvent the will of Colorado voters” – and he is right. Moreover, in the end, they will fail.
The president and the Department of Justice have made it clear that they are not going to enforce the federal ban on marijuana in states that have legalized it. And if we ever get a president who thinks otherwise, the states will likely have too great an addiction to marijuana revenue to let him or her enforce it.
