Lewis & Clark Law Review
First Page
967
Abstract
Litigation stemming from the state-legal cannabis industry has presented many unique questions for federal courts to grapple with. Can federal courts provide equitable relief to state-legal cannabis litigants, despite being in violation of federal law? Can workers in the state-legal cannabis industry sue their employers to recover required minimum wage under federal statutes? Is a contract that is made in a state-legal cannabis market automatically void? This Comment examines the precarious nature of state-legal cannabis litigation in federal courts through a dissection of how litigation has progressed. It also examines the framing of the arguments made in cannabis disputes. Although the litigation related to the state-legal cannabis industry has been very diverse, this Comment attempts to provide a synthesis of the fundamental principles courts are viewing these disputes from. This Comment argues that two relatively distinct views have emerged as a result of the unclear legal status of the state-legal cannabis industry. One view, the “Broad View,” focuses on how federal illegality creates broad barriers to otherwise clear legal rights that “normal” business industry participants would have. The other view, the “Narrow View,” focuses on the uniqueness of the state-legal cannabis industry and attempts to navigate the issues carefully and narrowly. This Comment further argues for adoption of the Narrow View from both a legal and policy perspective.
Recommended Citation
Blake Marvis,
Reefer Madness in Federal Court: An Overview of How Federal Courts Are Dealing with Cannabis Litigation and Why It Is Necessary to “Dig into the Weeds”,
23
Lewis & Clark L. Rev.
967
(2019).
Available at:
https://lawcommons.lclark.edu/lclr/vol23/iss3/7