Federal lawsuit about something illegal at the Federal level

[md2000]

@Northern_Piper

Can’t speak for other countries, but it couldn’t arise in Canada, for a couple of reasons.

First, the federal Parliament has exclusive jurisdiction over the criminal law. Only Parliament can legalise the use of marijuana, not the provinces. So, you can’t have a situation where possession of marijuana is legal provincially but a crime federally.

Second, our federal court has much more limited jurisdiction than the US federal courts. In particular, there’s no diversity jurisdiction. So if Al from Alberta wants to sue Bert from British Columbia over a contract, Al normally has to sue in the provincial courts. The BC courts would definitely have jurisdiction, based on Bert’s residence in BC. The Alberta courts may also have jurisdiction, if the parties entered the contract in Alberta.

In either case, the provincial courts would be bound to apply the federal law which makes it an offence to traffick in marijuana.

But haven’t there been situations where the provincial ministers of justice have threatened to not enforce certain laws? (Can’t think of any offhand where they followed through).

But as I said earlier, there’s no such thing as “a law making it legal”. As long as a government has jurisdiction, it can pass laws. if you violate any law, that government can charge you. I.e. Canada, the feds have a criminal law about DUI, while the provincial highway traffic acts forbid impaired driving too. If the province removed DUI from the traffic act, it’s still federally illegal and vice versa.

@Derleth

Right, but part of my question was the extent and nature of their lack of fortune. Is there an explicit reason the DEA wouldn’t show up? I know enforcing those laws isn’t a priority, but if you throw yourself into the lion’s mouth, you don’t expect to complain about his halitosis afterwords.

Presumably, this depends on the orders given the DEA to lay off Colorado/any state activity. If the affidavits filed in court are basically sworn statements clearly confessing to interstate transport (or promise/conspiracy to do same) that’s a little different than “ignore people selling the stuff in personal use quantities in this state”. Perhaps the feds want a little ambiguity about their orders?

Then there’s the question of who would call the DEA. Presumably some nosy person in the system - judge, court reporter, guard - might find it interesting to tip off the DEA. News reporter asking for a comment?

[lawbuff]

@dofe

Marijuana remains a controlled substance under federal law, regardless of its legality in state law. So the parties attempting to bring the civil suit before a federal judge will be out of luck.

I agree, here is some cases on a Contract against Public Policy as unenforceable.

http://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/lawreview/backissues/vol3/documents/friedman.pdf

[Northern_Piper]

@md200

But haven’t there been situations where the provincial ministers of justice have threatened to not enforce certain laws? (Can’t think of any offhand where they followed through).

The Quebec Attorney General announced after the last Morgentaler acquittal in the 70s that they would no longer prosecute abortion charges, because the decisions of the juries indicated that it was not possible to secure a conviction. However, that was not a case of the province legalising something by repealing a law. The provincial Attorneys General obtain their authority to prosecute from the federal Criminal Code, and the Quebec AG was exercising the prosecutorial discretion granted to him by federal law.

@md2000

But as I said earlier, there’s no such thing as “a law making it legal”. As long as a government has jurisdiction, it can pass laws. if you violate any law, that government can charge you. I.e. Canada, the feds have a criminal law about DUI, while the provincial highway traffic acts forbid impaired driving too. If the province removed DUI from the traffic act, it’s still federally illegal and vice versa.

I am not aware of any province which has passed a law making it a provincial offence to drive while impaired. There are temporary licence suspensions (typically 24 hours), if you are found driving and blow over a certain amount on the roadside testers but less than .08. There are also lengthier licence suspensions, if you are convicted of the federal offences of driving while impaired or driving over .08.

If you are aware of a provincial law which makes it an offence to drive while impaired, please provide a cite.

[Tim_T-Bonham.net]

@Northern_Piper

The Quebec Attorney General announced after the last Morgentaler acquittal in the 70s that they would no longer prosecute abortion charges, because the decisions of the juries indicated that it was not possible to secure a conviction.

Presumably, this one of the reasons the Feds/DEA are being somewhat circumspect in enforcing their drug laws in Colorado & Washington. A person charged by them could certainly ask for a jury trial, and based on the public vote in those states, it’s very likely that the jury would not find them guilty. That only takes 1 out of the 12 jurors.

No doubt the Federal prosecutor would try to keep off the jury any person who had voted in favor of marijuana legalization, just like they used to keep black people off the juries in the South. But the defense lawyers (and possibly the judges) would fight that,

The Feds don’t want to see a string of people charged under these Federal laws, then all acquitted by juries.