Supreme Court rejects 2 California counties' appeal of medical-marijuana law

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court rejected appeals Monday from two holdout counties in Southern California that object to the state's 13-year-old medical-marijuana law and claim it should be struck down as violating the federal drug-control act.

The action probably will clear the way for patients in San Diego and San Bernardino counties to seek county-issued identification cards that show they are eligible to possess and use marijuana.

These identification cards have been required under state law since 2004, but the two counties have refused to issue them. Their lawyers had asserted the state's authorization for using medical marijuana conflicted with the zero-tolerance policy set by federal law.

Federal officials contend that all use of marijuana is illegal, even in states such as California. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, however, said recently that the federal government will not devote great effort to prosecuting low-level marijuana cases.

Lawyers for San Diego and San Bernardino counties had gone to court seeking a clear ruling on whether the state law violated the federal drug law. San Diego NORML, a marijuana-advocacy group, had threatened to sue the county in 2005 for not complying with the state law by refusing to issue identification cards.

Last year, a state appeals court upheld the California medical-marijuana law and said it was not rendered void by the federal drug law. The California Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal from the two counties.

Both counties appealed to the Supreme Court.

Graham Boyd, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Drug Reform Law Project, said Monday's order dispels any remaining doubts that the state laws are valid.

Since California's voters adopted the Compassionate Use Act in 1996, 12 other states have approved measures permitting medical use of marijuana. They are Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington. The New Hampshire Legislature passed a similar measure recently that awaits action by the governor.

The federal government, however, has continued to insist that the sale or use of marijuana is illegal under the Controlled Substances Act. This 1970 law designates marijuana as a Schedule I drug that has "no currently accepted medical use" in the United States.

Federal authorities also have asserted they can arrest and prosecute all those who use or sell marijuana in California and other states that have authorized medical use of the drug.

Four years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress and the federal government had the constitutional authority to regulate the sale and use of marijuana under its power over interstate commerce. The 6-3 decision, in the case of Gonzales v. Raich, rejected the claim that personal use of homegrown marijuana was off-limits to federal authority. But the court did not rule then on whether the state's law allowing medical use of marijuana was void because it conflicted with the federal drug-control law.

In its appeal, San Diego County's lawyers had questioned whether the California law authorizing medical use of marijuana is pre-empted under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution by the federal law forbidding all use of marijuana.

The court also:

Refused to delay the upcoming trial of former U.S. Rep. William Jefferson of Louisiana on bribery and other charges. The former Democratic congressman has argued that prosecutors trampled on his constitutional privileges as a lawmaker. Jefferson was indicted in 2007 on multiple counts, including soliciting bribes and racketeering. Investigators raided his home and found $90,000 in cash in a freezer.

Ruled that FBI Director Robert Mueller and former Attorney General John Ashcroft can't face a lawsuit from a former Sept. 11 detainee who argued they were responsible for his restrictive confinement because of his religious beliefs. The court on Monday overturned a lower-court decision that let Javaid Iqbal's lawsuit against the high-ranking officials proceed. Iqbal is a Pakistani Muslim who argued that while Ashcroft and Mueller did not single him out for mistreatment, they were responsible for a policy of confining detainees in highly restrictive conditions because of their religious beliefs or race.

Refused to let four women who took maternity leave before Congress outlawed pregnancy discrimination sue AT&T for higher pension payments. The high court, in a 7-2 ruling issued Monday, overturned a lower-court decision that said decades-old maternity leaves should count in determining pensions.

Rejected an appeal by a son of author John Steinbeck over the publishing rights to "The Grapes of Wrath" and other early works. The court said Monday it won't disturb a ruling by the federal appeals court in New York that the rights belong to Penguin Group and the heirs of John Steinbeck's widow, Elaine. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said a lower-court judge misapplied copyright law in awarding the rights in 2006 to the son, Thomas Steinbeck, and granddaughter Blake Smyle. Both already receive a portion of the proceeds of sales.

Additional material from The Associated Press