Today Attorney General Eric Holder announced formal guidelines for federal prosecutors in states that have enacted laws authorizing the use of marijuana for medical purposes. Those guidelines are contained in a memo from Deputy Attorney General David W. Ogden which was sent  to United States Attorneys this morning.

The text of this memo is provided below for reference. You may also download a PDF version of the memo by clicking, here.

———————————————————————————————-

 

October 19,2009

MEMORANDUM FOR SELECTED UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS

FROM: David W. Ogden, Deputy Attorney General

SUBJECT: Investigations and Prosecutions in States Authorizing the Medical Use of Marijuana

This memorandum provides clarification and guidance to federal prosecutors in States that have enacted laws authorizing the medical use of marijuana. These laws vary in their substantive provisions and in the extent of state regulatory oversight, both among the enacting States and among local jurisdictions within those States. Rather than developing different guidelines for every possible variant of state and local law, this memorandum provides uniform guidance to focus federal investigations and prosecutions in these States on core federal enforcement priorities.

The Department of Justice is committed to the enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act in all States. Congress has determined that marijuana is a dangerous drug, and the illegal distribution and sale of marijuana is a serious crime and provides a significant source of revenue to large-scale criminal enterprises, gangs, and cartels. One timely example underscores the importance of our efforts to prosecute significant marijuana traffickers: marijuana distribution in the United States remains the single largest source of revenue for the Mexican cartels.

The Department is also committed to making efficient and rational use of its limited investigative and prosecutorial resources. In general, United States Attorneys are vested with “plenary authority with regard to federal criminal matters” within their districts. USAM 9-2.001. In exercising this authority, United States Attorneys are “invested by statute and delegation from the Attorney General with the broadest discretion in the exercise of such authority.” Id. This authority should, of course, be exercised consistent with Department priorities and guidance.

The prosecution of significant traffickers of illegal drugs, including marijuana, and the disruption of illegal drug manufacturing and trafficking networks continues to be a core priority in the Department’s efforts against narcotics and dangerous drugs, and the Department’s investigative and prosecutorial resources should be directed towards these objectives. As a general matter, pursuit of these priorities should not focus federal resources in your States on individuals whose actions are in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state laws providing for the medical use of marijuana. For example, prosecution of individuals with cancer or other serious illnesses who use marijuana as part of a recommended treatment regimen consistent with applicable state law, or those caregivers in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state law who provide such individuals with marijuana, is unlikely to be an efficient use of limited federal resources. On the other hand, prosecution of commercial enterprises that unlawfully market and sell marijuana for profit continues to be an enforcement priority of the Department. To be sure, claims of compliance with state or local law may mask operations inconsistent with the terms, conditions, or purposes of those laws, and federal law enforcement should not be deterred by such assertions when otherwise pursuing the Department’s core enforcement priorities.

Typically, when any of the following characteristics is present, the conduct will not be in clear and unambiguous compliance with applicable state law and may indicate illegal drug trafficking activity of potential federal interest:

• unlawful possession or unlawful use of firearms;
• violence;
• sales to minors;
• financial and marketing activities inconsistent with the terms, conditions, or purposes of state law, including evidence of money laundering activity and/or financial gains or excessive amounts of cash inconsistent with purported compliance with state or local law;
• amounts of marijuana inconsistent with purported compliance with state or local law;
• illegal possession or sale of other controlled substances; or
• ties to other criminal enterprises.

Of course, no State can authorize violations of federal law, and the list of factors above is not intended to describe exhaustively when a federal prosecution may be warranted. Accordingly, in prosecutions under the Controlled Substances Act, federal prosecutors are not expected to charge, prove, or otherwise establish any state law violations. Indeed, this memorandum does not alter in any way the Department’s authority to enforce federal law, including laws prohibiting the manufacture, production, distribution, possession, or use of marijuana on federal property. This guidance regarding resource allocation does not “legalize” marijuana or provide a legal defense to a violation of federal law, nor is it intended to create any privileges, benefits, or rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable by any individual, party or witness in any administrative, civil, or criminal matter. Nor does clear and unambiguous compliance with state law or the absence of one or all of the above factors create a legal defense to a violation of the Controlled Substances Act. Rather, this memorandum is intended solely as a guide to the exercise of investigative and prosecutorial discretion.

Finally, nothing herein precludes investigation or prosecution where there is a reasonable basis to believe that compliance with state law is being invoked as a pretext for the production or distribution of marijuana for purposes not authorized by state law. Nor does this guidance preclude investigation or prosecution, even when there is clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state law, in particular circumstances where investigation or prosecution otherwise serves important federal interests.

Your offices should continue to review marijuana cases for prosecution on a case-by-case basis, consistent with the guidance on resource allocation and federal priorities set forth herein, the consideration of requests for federal assistance from state and local law enforcement authorities, and the Principles of Federal Prosecution.

cc: All United States Attorneys

Lanny A. Breuer
Assistant Attorney General Criminal Division

B. Todd Jones
United States Attorney
District of Minnesota
Chair, Attorney General’s Advisory Committee

Michele M. Leonhart
Acting Administrator
Drug Enforcement Administration

H. Marshall Jarrett
Director
Executive Office for United States Attorneys

Kevin L. Perkins
Assistant Director
Criminal Investigative Division
Federal Bureau of Investigation

This post appears courtesy of the Office of Violence Against Women and their Acting Director, Catherine Pierce.

 Grantees under the Office on Violence Against Women’s (OVW) Rural Assistance Program convened in the Crescent City for a two-day conference called “Rural Innovations: Exploring Effective Interventions to End Violence Against Women” hosted by Praxis International.

 Associate Attorney General Tom Perrelli opened the conference by noting the Department’s renewed dedication to helping diverse geographic communities end violence against women:

You face a very different set of challenges than your colleagues in the field.  For you, sometimes the question of providing medical care to victims is not a matter of minutes, but hours.  Removing a woman or child from an abusive home can require snow or heavy-duty equipment.  And we also know that what works for some communities will not work for all…I am here to tell you that this Department of Justice and this administration are committed to ensuring that these issues are elevated in importance in matters of policy and funding resources. 

Survivors of violence living in rural jurisdictions face unique barriers to receiving assistance and additional challenges rarely encountered in urban areas.  The geographic isolation, economic structure, particularly strong social and cultural pressures, and lack of available services in rural jurisdictions significantly compound the problems confronted by those seeking support and services to end the violence in their lives and complicate the ability of the criminal justice system to investigate and prosecute domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking cases.

However, this conference, OVW’s Rural Grant Program, and Praxis’ technical assistance equip our grantees with new strategies and tools to ensure that every survivor receives the services they need to end the cycle of abuse. 

Allison Smith-Estelle, Executive Director of the Domestic and Sexual Violence Services of Carbon County, MT, and an OVW grantee since 2008, recently wrote us about the challenges of implementing common practices to address violence in rural Montana:  

Teens experiencing stalking are advised to change their class schedules and women experiencing domestic violence are advised to change their driving routes to work.  But in tiny rural towns where the entire high school has 20 students and there is only one road in and out of town, such strategies are unfeasible. One of our program’s very first funders gave us the same amount of local travel funds as it did to a program in Rhode Island, not differentiating what “local travel” means in a state that is bigger than Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey and Rhode Island combined!  

But she continues that funds awarded under OVW’s Rural Assistance Grant Program are making a real difference:

Rural OVW funding helped our program pilot several new strategies to ensure that we have the most coordinated and comprehensive response to violence possible.   While we have always been able to address our clients’ emergency needs, we now have the opportunity to figure out how to best help our clients safely move beyond the emergency, with short-term rent and utilities assistance, financial literacy classes, one-on-one financial and job counseling, and other forms of economic advocacy and support. 

Rural OVW provided funding, human-power and legitimacy to engage community partners from the fields of law enforcement, criminal justice and medicine in systems development work, through training and interagency policy and protocol development.  We are identifying creative ways to engage men in our frontier community as partners in the work to end violence against women, children and families. 

Finally, this funding gives us the opportunity to take to scale a model we’ve developed to reach students with messages about dating violence and healthy relationships.

The Office of Violence Against Women  made 76 awards totaling more than $33 million in Fiscal Year 2009, in addition to hundreds of ongoing projects funded under this program in previous years.  We are committed to helping our rural partners overcome their unique challenges to build their coordinated community response, despite the barriers of geographic isolation.  Only then can a truly informed understanding of the experience of violence in rural and frontier communities begin to emerge and all communities around the country can end the cycle of violence.

For additional information about OVW’s Rural Program and other funding opportunities, visit OVW’s website: www.ovw.usdoj.gov.

Christine A. Varney, Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Department’s Antitrust Division testified today at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on anticompetitive conduct in the health insurance industry.  In her testimony, AAG Varney presented the Department’s views on the antitrust immunity granted by the McCarran-Ferguson Act for the insurance industry. 

AAG Varney stated the Department is generally opposed to exemptions from the antitrust laws in the absence of a strong showing of a compelling need.

“The antitrust laws reflect our society’s belief that competition enhances consumer welfare and promotes our economic and political freedoms.  Exceptions from that policy should be—and fortunately are—relatively rare.”

AAG Varney noted that the effects of the antitrust exemption granted by McCarran-Ferguson have been reviewed and debated over the years.  Concerns over the effects of the exemption are especially relevant today given the importance of health insurance reform to our nation:

“There is a general consensus that health insurance reform should be built on a strong commitment to competition in all health care markets, including those for health and medical malpractice insurance.  Repealing the McCarran-Ferguson Act would allow competition to have a greater role in reforming health and medical malpractice insurance markets than would otherwise be the case.”

There are strong indications, AAG Varney explained, that the possible justifications for the insurance antitrust exemption that existed in 1945, when McCarran-Ferguson was enacted, are no longer valid.  As a result of Supreme Court opinions, the exemption is no longer necessary to enable the states to regulate the business of insurance.  Additionally, the application of antitrust laws to potentially procompetitive collective activity has become more sophisticated in such a way that there is now less concern that overly restrictive antitrust rulings would impair the insurance industry’s efficiency.

AAG Varney concluded her testimony by stating that the Department generally supports the idea of repealing antitrust exemptions, but it takes no position as to how and when Congress should address this issue.  She added:

 “In conjunction with the Administration’s efforts to strengthen insurance regulation and states’ role in setting and enforcing policies, the Department supports efforts to bring more competition to the health insurance marketplace that lower costs, expand choice, and improve quality for families, businesses, and government.”

Read the full testimony: “Prohibiting Price Fixing and Other Anticompetitive Conduct in the Health Insurance Industry”

The following post appears courtesy of  Jeff Slowikowski, the Acting Administrator for the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Yesterday, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) released  The National Survey on Children’s Exposure to Violence. The report is a precedent-setting survey because it gives us the first real estimates—as the most comprehensive survey to date– on the nature and extent of violence in children’s lives.

It is the first time data has been collected across all age ranges, and all types of violence, to define the full scope of violence-related experiences in a child’s life –whether it be as victims or witnesses, and whether it be in the home, the school or the community.  This is also the first time data has been collected on the cumulative exposure to violence over a child’s lifetime.

With this comprehensive survey, we now have learned that more than 60 percent of the children surveyed were exposed to violence within the past year, either directly or indirectly. Nearly one-half of the children and adolescents surveyed were assaulted at least once in the past year, and more than 1 in 10 were injured as a result. 

Respondents also reported they were the victim of a robbery, vandalism, or theft.  Some said they were victims of child maltreatment, including physical and emotional abuse, neglect, or a family abduction. 1 in 16 were victimized sexually. 

As Attorney General Holder said yesterday in Chicago, these figures are staggering.

The violence that millions of children and youth are exposed to in their homes, schools and communities, whether as direct victims or as a witness, can disrupt their development in many ways.  This disruption in development comes from the impact of the stress or trauma on the child.  It can be exhibited in how they think, interact, learn and develop relationships. 

Each child responds to exposure to violence differently and many children are resilient.  Others need support to address trauma reactions to prevent further adverse reactions. That’s why we in the Department of Justice’s Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention support initiatives like Safe Start to prevent and reduce the impacts of children’s exposure to violence. It is our mission to protect our youth and reduce children’s exposure to violence.

At OJJDP we will continue to support the training necessary to reach across disciplines to identify children who are at risk of exposure to violence, such as witnessing domestic violence, and to coordinate the delivery of services to these children. Accurate information is a key ingredient to helping us accomplish our mission.  Because the survey tracked children’s lifetime exposure to violence, researchers can develop more accurate estimates on the total number of children in a certain age group who have been exposed to a particular form of violence. It illustrates more clearly the full extent of exposure and the cumulative effects of multiple exposures to violence and how exposure to one form of violence may make a child more vulnerable to other forms of violence.

Armed with these facts we will also work with those who come into daily contact with youth and children to assess and identify those who are suffering emotionally, socially, physically and developmentally from exposure to violence.  We can better coordinate our outreach to those children and families who need our help, and provide them with the support they need.  This study gives us the tools to better protect juveniles and youth from the effects of violence and guide them into healthy and productive lives.

For more information visit the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Today, the Justice Department announces initiatives to commemorate National Disability Awareness month.

The Civil Rights Division will join the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in holding town hall meetings in Philadelphia, Chicago, San Francisco and New Orleans, to share information about the proposed ADA Amendments Act regulations and to gather comments on them. These town hall’s will consist of two sessions – one for disability advocates and one for the employer community. These sessions will be completed by November 20th.

Additionally, the Civil Rights Division will release a video produced by its Disability Rights Section that will identify and respond to a number of common myths held by employers about workers with disabilities.

This announcement comes on the occasion of Thomas E. Perez’s return to the Justice Department as Assistant Attorney General of the Civil Rights Division. Here is AAG Perez’s statement on the occasion:

“The Civil Rights Division is committed to ensuring that the millions of Americans with disabilities are able to live full, productive lives through access to employment and all aspects of civic life. Unfortunately, myths and falsehoods about disabilities make it far too difficult for many individuals with disabilities to secure a job. The Justice Department today renews its vigilance to fairly and judiciously enforcing federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of a disability. By protecting the rights of all individuals so that they can contribute to our society, we strengthen our communities and our nation as a whole. I am honored to join President Obama to commemorate National Disability Employment Awareness Month on the occasion of my return to the Justice Department.”

For more information, visit the Department of Labor’s National Disability Employment Awareness Month Web site.

AAG Breuer testifies before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee regarding human rights violators. Photograph by Eli Rosenbaum for The Department of Justice

Today, Lanny A. Breuer, the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division, testified before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Human Rights and the Law about how the Department works to hold human rights violators accountable for their crimes.  He also outlined plans to enhance these efforts by merging two sections of the Criminal Division.

At the onset, AAG Breuer outlined ways in which the Department brings human rights violators to justice.  The first starts at our borders, where we work with the Department of Homeland Security to prevent these perpetrators from entering our country.  If a suspect has entered the country, and we can’t prosecute them in our own courts, we seek to capture and extradite them so they can stand trial abroad.  Finally, when evidence implicates someone in genocide, war crimes, torture or other human rights violations, the federal government moves swiftly to investigate and take the appropriate legal action.

For example, AAG Breuer highlighted the prosecution of Roy M. Belfast aka “Chuckie Taylor,” the first person charged with violating the U.S. stature prohibiting torture.  Federal prosecutors proved that Belfast, who was born in the United States and is the son of former Liberian dictator Charles Taylor, commanded a Liberian paramilitary organization that routinely and brutally tortured their enemies.  In January 2009, Belfast was sentenced to 97 years in prison. 

Immigration litigation is another powerful tool to bring human rights violators to justice. In May 2009, former Nazi death camp guard John Demjanjuk was removed to Germany. Upon arrival in Germany, Demjanjuk was arrested and charged with having been an accessory to the murder of more than 29,000 Jews at a concentration camp.

Breuer noted that while the Department is proud of its efforts to prosecute human rights violators and build global capacity to address these atrocities, he said the Department can and will do more to pursue justice and achieve deterrence in these cases. 

Specifically, he announced he has recommended to the Attorney General that the Department’s already outstanding efforts in the area of human rights would be enhanced by a merger of the Criminal Division’s Domestic Security Section and the Office of Special Investigation into a new section with responsibility for human rights enforcement, MEJA/SMTJ cases, and alien-smuggling and related matters.  That new section would be called the Human Rights and Special Prosecutions Section. 

AAG Breuer testified that the Attorney General has indicated his support for this change and the Department’s strong commitment to enforcing human rights, and he expects to move forward with it, after necessary approvals from the Office of Management and Budget and notifications to Congress.     

Holding human rights violators accountable is integral to the Department’s mission, and requires close coordination and cooperation throughout the federal government and with our law enforcement partners abroad.  AAG Breuer and the entire Criminal Division are committed to strengthening the rule of law and foster respect for human rights both here in the United States and around the world.

Read AAG Breuer’s full testimony. (PDF)