Fairbanks judge dismisses marijuana conviction
Will there be national repercussions? Will the Feds punish Alaska? Will it be overturned? Will other states follow suit?
I smell another rape of the 10th amendment on the way.
Bye bye Alaskan highway funds.
Having driven over nearly all of Alaska’s main highways 20 years ago, I doubt that the state’s receiving much in the way of federal highway funds anyway. 
Actually, what’s probably gonna happen is, The Bush Admin. will declare Alaska a “rogue state”, and invade Alaska under the guise of “liberating the oppressed people”, but what they’re really after is all that oil.
That was my inital fear also. But this is different from a state passing a law legalizing/decriminalizing pot; here, the court is saying the the state constitution grants the right to possess. Can the feds demand that a state change its constitution to conform to federal law?
I was under the impression that Alaska has had an on again off again policy on pot. 1974 referendum IIRC. Could be wrong.
If the guy wasn’t charged under federal law I’m not sure what the Fed can do about it.
If the prosecutor chooses not to charge marijuana offenders under federal laws then the judge doesn’t have to make rulings pertinent to federal law. He’s restricted to considering the case as presented.
The fed would have to come up with some prosecutorial incentive for charging offenders under fed law.
Don’t they keep California on it’s toes by occasionally having Fed agents come in to make an example of a couple of medical maryjane co-ops?
IANAL, so if lawyers out there feel like tackling these overlapping questions:
Is it true that federal courts can’t overrule a State supreme court over a State constitution interpretation?
If pot in the home is guaranteed under State constitution what are the implications of it violating fed law. (IIRC, Nevada’s last failed initiative was the first step in getting a State constitutional change) As far as I’m aware the other states where it is “decriminilized”, it hasn’t been given constitutional protection.
What mechanism gives the feds jurisdiction (or not)? Why this apparent overlap between state/fed jurisdiction?
Exactly what went thru my head when I saw the thread title.
They’ll deal with it the same way they did with California. The Feds will simply ignore the local laws and rulings, and federal judges aren’t about to cede power back to the states, even if there’s no legitimate federal authority as in the case of intrastate trade.
Why don’t we wait and see if this judge’s ruling is upheld by a court that has the authority to set precedent, before imagining tanks rolling into Juneau next month?
I agree with laigle. State law? What is this state law of which you speak? We are the feds see? And we say it’s illegal so get your ass in jail!
Sorry, I’m still a bit bitter about the last situation in California. It kind of defeats the purpose of something being legal in an individual state if the feds can waltz in at any time and randomly declare it illegal and arrest you for it. Logically, it was never really legal in the first place, was it?
Bricker, I’ll admit ignorance on how precedents are set. How does this happen? This was a Superior court decision; I presume the next step is the State Appeals court? At what point is the precedent set?
Tanks can’t roll into Juneau. The city is inaccessible by land. They would have to land Marines or paratroopers.
Thank God for Alaska helping to take America out of the War-Against-Some-Drugs madness.
Exactly right. 1975, actually. Then in 1990, spurred on by the liquor industry and other paranoid groups (ohgodwon’tsomeonethinkofthechildren?), a citizen initiative hit the ballot re-criminalizing pot. Meanwhile, the liquor industry is laughing their asses off while foisting their toxins on the general populace under the cover of law.
In general, the trial court decision does not set precedent. In Alaska, the Court of Appeals is the intermediate appellate court, and the Alaska Supreme Court is the highest state court.
Decisions of the Court of Appeals in Alaska may be cited as precedent. It’s unclear to me from a brief review if there is any sort of regional breakdown, but I doubt it.
- Rick
CarnalK wrote:
Yes and no. The Alaska Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Alaska Constitution is binding law. However, that state contitution is subordinate to the US Constitution and federal laws. This is because of the Supremacy Clause in Article VI of the US Constitution
Even if the Alaska Supreme Court upholds the lower court ruling, it would only mean that Alaska’s state laws against personal possession of pot in the home would be rendered unenforceable The feds could still enforce federal laws.
I should expand on that by saying that there are situations in which a state constitution can provide greater protection than the US Constitution. The most commonly cited example involved Georgia’s law against sodomy.
In Bowers v. Hardwick, the US Supreme Court said that Georgia’s anti-sodomy statute did not violate the US constitution, and upheld a conviction under that statute. However, in a later case, the Georgia Supreme Court ruled that the statute violated the Georgia Constitution, and struck down the law. Although the Constitutional language being interpreted was almost identical to that in the US Constitution, the Georgia constitution was held to be more protective of privacy rights. (Of course, all of this was rendered moot by the US Supreme Court’s recent overruling of its own decision in Bowers.)
The key distinction is that in those instances, a state criminal statute was at issue. There was no federal statute declaring sodomy illegal.
In the present situation there are federal statutes making possession of marijuana a federal crime. Because of the Supremacy Clause, the Alaska court’s ruling would have no impact on those statutes. Alaska can decide its own state criminal laws are unconstitutional, but can’t strike down federal laws.
So what would happen if the Alaska Attorney General decided he didn’t want to risk setting a precedent by appealing this case to a higher court? Could he simply let this decision stand, and continue to prosecute personal possession cases? Could defendants make the same arguments and win, with or without directly referencing this decision? Isn’t it a de facto precedent?
Thanks spoke. That follows my sense of it.
Could you (or anyone) point me somewhere that the jurisdiction issues are explained/argued,svp? I seem to remember there was some disagreement on that. What are the limits on what the feds can pass laws on?
IANAL Fear Itself but I would guess the case is at least influential. I think another Alaskan judge with a very similar case would be loathe to give a radically different decision. It would project a confusion that judges seem to try to avoid.
The defendant has already been in jeopardy, so s/he can’t be tried again for the same offense. But can the federal government appeal the decision even so, in order to nullify the legal repercussions of the state court’s decision?