No. 23-123
Ezekial Flatten, et al. v. Bruce Smith, et al.
Response Waived
Tags: cannabis-commerce civil-rights commerce-clause constitutional-limitations due-process federal-legislative-jurisdiction gonzales-v-raich property-rights rico rico-claims state-property-rights
Latest Conference:
2023-09-26
Question Presented (from Petition)
1. Should this Court reverse Shulman v. Kaplan and restore property rights in cannabis to a status equal to other property rights protectable under RICO?
2. Should this Court revisit Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005) and permit state licensed persons in possession of cannabis to rebut the presumption that all cannabis is part of interstate commerce with evidence that their possession is legal under state law and limited to intrastate commerce?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Should this Court reverse Shulman v. Kaplan and restore property rights in cannabis to a status equal to other property rights protectable under RICO?
Docket Entries
2023-10-02
Petition DENIED.
2023-08-23
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/26/2023.
2023-08-16
Waiver of right of respondent Steve White to respond filed.
2023-08-11
Waiver of right of respondent Bruce Smith to respond filed.
2023-08-03
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due September 8, 2023)
Attorneys
Bruce Smith
Michael G. Colantuono — Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley, PC, Respondent
Ezekial Flatten, et al.
John Houston Scott — Scott Law Firm, Petitioner
Steve White
Kymberly Elizabeth Speer — California Department of Justice, Respondent