吃瓜直播

Nevadans, like voters in many states, have chosen to legalize marijuana for medicinal and recreational use. In Nevada, these changes鈥攁dopted through citizen ballot initiatives and, in the case of medical marijuana, enshrined in the Nevada Constitution鈥攚ere intended to ensure that marijuana is regulated much like alcohol and that law enforcement resources are focused on violent crime, not the prosecution of non-violent drug offenses. Despite these legal changes, Nevada鈥檚 Board of Pharmacy continues to regulate marijuana as a Schedule I controlled substance for purposes of state law, akin to the Board鈥檚 treatment of cocaine and fentanyl. The Board鈥檚 scheduling designation for marijuana has enormous implications for criminal defendants in Nevada since state law makes it a felony to possess or engage in certain other activity with respect to a Schedule I controlled substance, as designated by the Board. This case, brought by an individual and organization harmed by the Board鈥檚 scheduling designation for marijuana, involves the question whether the designation violates the Nevada Constitution and state statutes. The 吃瓜直播 of Nevada is counsel in the case, and the 吃瓜直播鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative is co-counsel on appeal. In August 2024, the Court held that Pool and CEIC lack standing to challenge marijuana's designation as a Schedule I substance but recognized that other individuals could appropriately do so in the future. The Court did not reach the merits in reversing the district court鈥檚 positive decision.

In recent years, federal courts have relied on what鈥檚 called the 鈥減olitical question doctrine鈥� to refuse to review legal claims of wrongdoing, even those involving egregious constitutional harm. Using the political question doctrine, federal courts have turned away claims from people seeking justice on the theory that court review of those claims would embroil the courts in matters best left to the political process. Whether state courts should adopt a parallel political question doctrine鈥攁nd thus limit access to justice for people whose civil rights and liberties have been violated鈥攊s an open question in many states. This case involves the scope of Utah courts鈥� authority to review important constitutional claims.

The University of Florida chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine filed a lawsuit on November 16, 2023, challenging the Chancellor of the State University System of Florida鈥檚 order to state universities to deactivate the student group. This order threatens the students鈥� constitutionally-protected right to free speech and association in violation of the First Amendment. The 吃瓜直播 and its partners are seeking a preliminary injunction that would bar the Chancellor and the University of Florida from deactivating the UF SJP.

Hundreds if not thousands of Salt Lake City, Utah, residents have nowhere safe to stay and must live and sleep in public. This case鈥攂rought by a small group of residents and businesses鈥攊nvolves the question whether this citywide homelessness crisis constitutes a nuisance under Utah state law. It also presents the question whether Salt Lake City can be ordered to clear encampments, forcibly relocate people who are unhoused, and enforce vague and overbroad laws criminalizing homelessness where doing so will likely, if not certainly, violate unhoused people鈥檚 state and federal constitutional rights. The 吃瓜直播鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative and Trone Center for Justice and Equality, along with the 吃瓜直播 of Utah and the Salt Lake Legal Defenders Association, represent amici curiae in the trial court who oppose the plaintiffs鈥� nuisance claims and their request for relief.