Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Lance CARLSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Defendant-Appellee.
MEMORANDUM ***
Lance Carlson appeals the district court’s dismissal of his action and its order refusing to certify a question to the Montana Supreme Court. We affirm.
Because sections 50-46-320(4)(b) and (5) of the Montana Marijuana Act (MMA) state that the MMA does not prevent employers from prohibiting their employees from using marijuana or authorize wrongful termination or discrimination suits against employers, Mont. Code Ann. §§ 50-46-320(4)(b), (5), the MMA does not preclude a federal contractor from complying with all the requirements of the Drug-Free Workplace Act (DFWA), 41 U.S.C. § 8102. Therefore, the MMA is not preempted by the DFWA. See PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing, 564 U.S. 604, 620, 131 S.Ct. 2567, 180 L.Ed.2d 580 (2011); Crosby v. Nat’l Foreign Trade Council, 530 U.S. 363, 373, 120 S.Ct. 2288, 147 L.Ed.2d 352 (2000).
Nevertheless, sections 50-46-320(4)(b) and (5) do not violate the Montana constitution; rather, they survive rational basis review because they are rationally related to Montana’s legitimate state interest in providing “careful regulation of access to an otherwise illegal substance for limited use by persons for whom there is little or no other effective alternative” while “avoid[ing] entanglement with federal law.” Mont. Cannabis Indus. Ass’n v. State, 382 Mont. 256, 368 P.3d 1131, 1143 (2016). Although a congressional appropriations rider currently restricts the Department of Justice from spending funds to prosecute individuals who comply with state marijuana laws, see United States v. McIntosh, 833 F.3d 1163, 1169, 1179 (9th Cir. 2016), this temporary rule does not undercut Montana’s legitimate state interests.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Carlson’s request to certify the question whether sections 50-46-320(4)(b) and (5) are constitutional to the Montana Supreme Court, because it is not an unclear question of state law appropriate for certification. See Centurion Properties III, LLC v. Chi. Title Ins. Co., 793 F.3d 1087, 1089 (9th Cir. 2015).
AFFIRMED.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 17-35917
Decided: November 19, 2018
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)