October Term 2000 · Docket 00-151

Does federal law allow medical marijuana use?

The dispute centers on whether federal law permits a cooperative to distribute marijuana for medical purposes.

Official caption
United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    General Underwood stated the Controlled Substances Act prohibits distribution. She cited congressional and executive determinations against medical use. She noted the drug has high abuse potential.

    Mr. Uelmen argued the government made a tactical choice. He said they sought injunctive relief instead of criminal prosecution. He claimed this deprived the opposing sides of a jury trial.

    Chief Justice Rehnquist thanked General Underwood. He stated the case was submitted.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

The government seeks to stop the cooperative from distributing marijuana. The cooperative wants to continue its operations.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on March 28, 2001.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

The government wants a court order to stop the cooperative from distributing marijuana.

The cooperative wants to continue distributing marijuana for medical use.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

The government argues federal law bans distribution because officials found no accepted medical use.

The cooperative argues the government's choice of legal action denied them a jury trial.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Chief Justice Rehnquist asked if the case was submitted.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case determines if federal law blocks medical marijuana distribution. It defines the scope of federal control over drug use. It impacts patient access to specific treatments. It clarifies the limits of federal enforcement power.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON