Pa. Supreme Court Strikes Down Probation Policy Barring Medical Marijuana Use
Chief Justice Thomas Saylor, who wrote the court's 16-page opinion, said the language of the law was clear, and any policy concerns expressed by a county court system would best be addressed by the General Assembly.
June 18, 2020 at 11:48 AM
4 minute read
A Pennsylvania county's policy barring people on probation from using medical marijuana is unlawful, the state Supreme Court has ruled in a high-profile test of the 2016 law legalizing medicinal uses of the substance.
The justices on Thursday unanimously held in the case, captioned Gass v. 52nd Judicial District, Lebanon County, that Lebanon County's broad policy conflicted with immunities provided to patients under the Medical Marijuana Act. The court had taken up the matter under its plenary, or King's Bench, jurisdiction.
The ruling is a win for the American Civil Liberties Union, which argued to the justices last month that the MMA granted sweeping protections for medical marijuana users and did not create exceptions for criminal history or probation status.
Chief Justice Thomas Saylor, who wrote the court's 16-page opinion, said the language of the law was clear, and any policy concerns expressed by a county court system would best be addressed by the General Assembly.
"We are cognizant of the district's concerns that medical marijuana use by probationers may, in fact, cause difficulties with court supervision and treatment," he said. "Nevertheless, '[w]here the language of the governing statute is clear (or clear enough) … the solution is legislative — and not judicial — adjustment.'"
Reggie Shuford, executive director of the ACLU of Pennsylvania, said in an emailed statement that the ruling was a "major victory for people who rely on medical marijuana to treat their medical conditions."
"We are grateful that the justices understood the legislature's clear intent that people who lawfully use this treatment should not be punished for it," he said.
ACLU attorney Sara Rose represented the petitioners, and Robert Krandel of the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts argued on behalf of Lebanon County's judicial district. An AOPC spokeswoman did not immediately comment on the ruling.
The ACLU brought the case on behalf of three people who were allegedly forced to stop using medical marijuana due to Lebanon County's policy barring those under court supervision from using the substance, even if it had been prescribed by a doctor. According to the ACLU, the petitioners Melissa Gass, Ashley Bennett and Andrew Koch used medically prescribed marijuana to treat a range of ailments, including seizures, post-traumatic stress disorder and chronic pain.
The challenge was initially filed in the Commonwealth Court's original jurisdiction, raising class action allegations and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to invalidate the policy. The Commonwealth Court attempted to transfer the case to the Supreme Court, but after determining the transfer was improper, the justices decided to hear the case anyway in the court's King's Bench jurisdictions, which is primarily used to quickly address matters of statewide significance.
During last month's argument session, Lebanon's judicial district argued to the justices that courts in Pennsylvania need the power to bar a person's medical marijuana use so the probation department can take a holistic approach to its supervision when probationers suffer dependency issues. The district further argued that the policy did not go against the immunities the MMA provided to patients because the policy did not mean individuals would be penalized solely for their medical marijuana use.
The ACLU, however, argued that the MMA clearly states that people cannot be punished for using medically prescribed marijuana, and so the policy violated the plain language of the law.
Saylor agreed, but noted in the opinion that courts will still be able to inquire about the legality of a probationer's marijuana use.
"[N]othing impedes a revocation hearing or other lawful form of redress, where there is reasonable cause to believe that a probationer or other person under court supervision has possessed or used marijuana in a manner that has not been made lawful by the enactment," he said.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllImmunity for Mental Health Care and Coverage for CBD: What's on the Pa. High Court's November Calendar
5 minute readSlip-and-Fall Suit Cleared to Proceed Against Kalahari Indoor Waterpark
3 minute readVolunteering for Voter Protection Efforts, Pa. Firms Brace for Contentious Election
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250