吃瓜直播 OBTAINS COURT RULING AGAINST SMITHFIELD ANTI-MEDICAL MARIJUANA ORDINANCE
In an important victory for the rights of medical marijuana patients in the state, R.I. Superior Court Judge Richard Licht today issued a preliminary injunction against a Smithfield ordinance that the 吃瓜直播 argued was an attempt to undermine the state鈥檚 medical marijuana law by imposing significant burdens on patients鈥� access to treatment in conflict with state law. The decision establishes an important precedent because a number of other municipalities have adopted, or are considering adopting, similar troubling restrictions on the rights of medical marijuana patients, although Smithfield鈥檚 appeared to be the most egregious.
In its decision granting the injunction, the Court said that the plaintiffs had demonstrated that enforcement of the ordinance would cause 鈥渋rreparable harm鈥� by leading to the 鈥渦nwarranted disclosure of Plaintiffs鈥� status as medical marijuana cardholders鈥� contrary to state law, that Town interference in the state鈥檚 detailed medical marijuana system 鈥渃ould impair the public interest,鈥� and that the hardships to the plaintiffs in terms of their 鈥渋ncreased difficulty or inability to either grow or obtain their medicine鈥� weighed in favor of issuing an injunction.
The Town鈥檚 ordinance, enacted in April, imposes a number of onerous constraints on the possession and growth of medical marijuana, despite, and directly contrary to, stringent regulations already in place under Rhode Island鈥檚 medical marijuana law. Among other restrictions, the ordinance limits the growing of medical marijuana to two mature plants and two seedlings, and only at a patient鈥檚 primary residence, even though state law specifically allows for the cultivation of 12 mature plants and outlines where medical marijuana can be grown.
The Smithfield ordinance further undermines the rights of patients by completely barring caregivers from growing medical marijuana for them anywhere in the town. The ordinance also requires patients to disclose their identity to a number of municipal authorities, which, the suit argues, is almost certain to undermine their right to confidentiality under the law.
The lawsuit, filed by 吃瓜直播 of RI volunteer attorneys C. Alexander Chiulli, John Meara and Matthew Plain, is on behalf of two licensed medical marijuana patients 鈥� listed as Jane Does to protect their confidentiality 鈥� and the Rhode Island Patient Advocacy Coalition (RIPAC), a medical marijuana public education organization. Among other things, the suit argues that the ordinance infringes on patients鈥� rights as guaranteed by state law, unduly restricts access to treatment, harms patients鈥� privacy rights, and unjustly targets medical marijuana users 鈥� all in violation of Rhode Island state law. The suit sought an injunction barring Smithfield鈥檚 enforcement of the ordinance. The 吃瓜直播 had previously urged the Town Council not to adopt the ordinance because of its adverse impact on local residents suffering from serious illnesses.
RIPAC director JoAnne Leppanen said today: 鈥淭he Smithfield ordinance was based on misinformation and prejudice. It was enacted by a council more concerned with an anti-marijuana agenda than the health of its most fragile and vulnerable residents, the facts, or the law. It has inflicted stress, fear and suffering on law abiding patients struggling to cope with debilitating medical conditions. We are grateful that the town will now be required to abide by the state law.鈥�
吃瓜直播 of RI volunteer attorney C. Alexander Chiulli added: 鈥淭his decision confirms the legitimacy of Rhode Island鈥檚 medical marijuana program and, most importantly, the rights and protections it affords its participants. It sends a strong message that municipalities statewide must respect those rights.鈥�
吃瓜直播 of RI executive director Steven Brown stated: 鈥淭he 吃瓜直播 is hopeful that this decision will encourage every other municipality considering adopting anti-medical marijuana ordinances to reconsider their plans.鈥� Brown added that, in order to drive the message of the court鈥檚 decision home, the 吃瓜直播 was considering filing suit against one of the other municipalities that presently has a similarly restrictive ordinance in conflict with the state鈥檚 medical marijuana law.
The court will hold further proceedings at some point in the future on the 吃瓜直播鈥檚 request to make the preliminary injunction permanent. In the meantime, the 吃瓜直播鈥檚 Brown said the organization would ask other municipalities to put any similar ordinances or planned ordinances on hold in light of today鈥檚 ruling.
The full text of the decision can be found here:
Learn More 吃瓜直播 the Issues in This Press Release
-
Press ReleaseJun 2025
Criminal Law Reform
Supreme Court Affirms First Step Act Sentencing Reductions. Explore Press Release.Supreme Court Affirms First Step Act Sentencing Reductions
WASHINGTON 鈥� The Supreme Court ruled today that the sentencing reductions under the First Step Act of 2018 apply to people whose pre-Act sentences are vacated and who are subject to resentencing after the law鈥檚 enactment. The First Step Act was passed with overwhelming bipartisan support in 2018 to reduce the federal prison population, reform extreme sentencing laws, and expand rehabilitation and reentry programs. Among its provisions, the law significantly lowered mandatory minimum sentences for certain federal drug and firearm offenses. Today鈥檚 decision means that people who were originally sentenced prior to the First Step Act but resentenced after the law鈥檚 effective date can benefit from these critical sentencing reforms. 鈥淔or many people facing extreme sentences of 50-plus years, applying the First Step Act can be the difference between dying in prison and having a chance to return home,鈥� said Emma Andersson, deputy director of the 吃瓜直播鈥檚 Criminal Law Reform Project. 鈥淭he First Step Act was a landmark achievement in federal sentencing reform, and this decision ensures that it will mitigate extreme and outdated sentencing laws for more people. The 吃瓜直播 was vocal about supporting the First Step Act when it was passed, and we continue to advocate for the law to be fully implemented as Congress intended.鈥� 鈥淲e hail today鈥檚 decision in Hewitt as a win for the common-sense sentencing reform Congress enacted with the First Step Act,鈥� said Cecillia Wang, national legal director of the 吃瓜直播. 鈥淛ustice Jackson, writing for the majority, speaks with the authority of a federal sentencing expert, and the language and purpose of the statute has always been clear. Individuals who are being resentenced get the benefit of Congress鈥檚 reform.鈥� The 吃瓜直播, 吃瓜直播 of Texas, CATO Institute, Due Process Institute, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and FAMM, working with Covington & Burling, filed an amicus brief in support of the petitioners who sought application of the First Step Act in their cases and resolution of a split in the courts of appeals on the law鈥檚 reach in cases like theirs. The question at issue is of exceptional importance to people facing resentencing, and applying the First Step Act in these cases is consistent with Congress鈥� intent. This case is part of the 吃瓜直播鈥檚 Joan and Irwin Jacobs Supreme Court Docket. The amicus brief can be found here. -
Iowa Supreme CourtJun 2025
Criminal Law Reform
State V. Hidlebaugh. Explore Case.State v. Hidlebaugh
This case asks whether it violates equal protection principles to impose a prison sentence, instead of probation, based on a defendant鈥檚 inability to purchase a house. The 吃瓜直播鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative and the 吃瓜直播 of Iowa filed an amicus brief arguing that imposing a harsher sentence based on a criminal defendant鈥檚 inability to purchase a home impinges on the equal protection guarantees in the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and article I, sections 1 and 6 of the Iowa Constitution. -
Michigan Supreme CourtJun 2025
Criminal Law Reform
State V. Fenderson. Explore Case.State v. Fenderson
This case asks whether the government can elicit inculpatory statements from a defendant by giving him misleading information about his rights and applying coercive pressure, then using the statements against him in a criminal case. The 吃瓜直播鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative and the 吃瓜直播 of Michigan filed an amicus brief arguing that such actions by the government violate a defendant鈥檚 rights under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and, independently, Article 1, Section 17 of the Michigan Constitution, which affords even broader protections against self-incrimination than the Fifth Amendment. -
TennesseeMay 2025
Criminal Law Reform
Prisoners' Rights
State V. Bishop. Explore Case.State v. Bishop
This case presents two questions: first, whether, under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, section 7 of the Tennessee Constitution, Union City Police Department officers possessed probable cause to conduct a warrantless search of the defendant鈥檚 vehicle based exclusively on the alleged odor of cannabis, and second, whether the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to overturn the defendant鈥檚 conviction. The 吃瓜直播鈥檚 Criminal Reform Legal Project and State Supreme Court Initiative, along with the 吃瓜直播 of Tennessee filed an amicus brief arguing first, that after Tennessee鈥檚 legalization of hemp in 2019, an officer鈥檚 alleged detection of the odor of cannabis is insufficient to establish probable cause to conduct a warrantless search of a vehicle in Tennessee, and second, that the court of appeals improperly held that it lacked jurisdiction to overturn the defendant鈥檚 conviction.