This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
According to Mr. Atkinson, petitioners argue that the Attorney General lacks authority under the Controlled Substances Act.
Respondents argue that Oregon's removal of state‑law consequences also eliminates federal consequences.
Background and question before the Court
Oral argument began before the Supreme Court at 10:02 a.m.
Justice Stevens asked, “What Federal law does it violate?”
What each side argues
Petitioners
Petitioners contend the Attorney General’s action violates the Controlled Substances Act.
According to Mr. Atkinson, petitioners argue the Attorney General lacks authority under the Controlled Substances Act.
According to Mr. Atkinson, petitioners say medical practices evolve and are regulated by the states, not the Attorney General.
Respondents
Respondents contend that Oregon’s removal of state‑law consequences also removes federal consequences.
According to General Clement, respondents argue the federal regime has a long history of regulating controlled substances and should not be overridden by the state.
What happened at oral argument
Justice Stevens asked, “What Federal law does it violate?”
Chief Justice Roberts asked, “What does that do to the effectiveness of regulation under the Controlled Substances Act?”
Justice Souter asked whether Congress could pass a statute prohibiting states from authorizing morphine use.
Justice Ginsburg asked about procedural problems and lack of notice.
Justice Stevens asked whether Congress has spoken on the issue.
According to Mr. Atkinson, petitioners argue the Attorney General lacks authority under the Controlled Substances Act.
Respondents contend Oregon’s removal of state‑law consequences also removes federal consequences.
- [1] 20ea609cb2fdba49929b-r1-c5cd408e95ba329b.pdf, p. 3
- [2] 20ea609cb2fdba49929b-r1-c5cd408e95ba329b.pdf, p. 36
- [3] 20ea609cb2fdba49929b-r1-c5cd408e95ba329b.pdf, p. 38
- [4] 20ea609cb2fdba49929b-r1-c5cd408e95ba329b.pdf, p. 51
- [5] 20ea609cb2fdba49929b-r1-c5cd408e95ba329b.pdf, p. 53
- [6] 20ea609cb2fdba49929b-r1-c5cd408e95ba329b.pdf, p. 36
- [7] 20ea609cb2fdba49929b-r1-c5cd408e95ba329b.pdf, p. 3
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 20ea609cb2fdba49929b-r1-c5cd408e95ba329b.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 21, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.