U.S. Supreme Court: Federal Law Does Not Pre-empt State MMJ Law

[AnotherMcIntosh]

23. Of course that's what that means. In contrast, it does not mean (as improperly implied by the

headline writer at the Daily Chronic) that the Supreme Court made a decision to uphold the lower court's ruling.

If the Supreme Court had decided what the headline writer suggested, the Supreme Court's decision would be the law of the land in all 50 states and no California appellate courts or courts in other states could rule to the contrary.

The decision by the California’s Fourth District Court of Appeal is not even the law of the land in those counties in California not covered by California’s Fourth District Court of Appeal.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal is limited to covering three geographical area. Division One is located in San Diego and has jurisdiction over matters from Imperial and San Diego Counties. Division Two is located in Riverside and has jurisdiction over matters from Inyo, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. Division Three is located in Santa Ana and has jurisdiction over matters from Orange County.

The DCA made the right decision, but just as the California Supreme Court did not review the opinion, the United States Supreme Court did not review the opinion. No one should claim or imply that a decision was issued by the US Supreme Court.

Incidentally, the article also incorrectly states that the "City of Garden Grove appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court." I assume that you know why.