Newswise — The Supreme Court ruled that federal authorities may prosecute sick people whose doctors prescribe marijuana to ease pain, concluding that state laws don't protect users from a federal ban on the drug. Following are experts who can discuss the health care, legal and political implications of this decision:
**1. MARK MOLLER, senior fellow at the CATO INSTITUTE, was co-counsel in the Cato brief filed on behalf of Raich: "Because the marijuana at issue in this case was grown and used locally for medical purposes -- in strict adherence with California law -- the Supreme Court had a key opportunity to rule that the Commerce Clause does not give the federal government power over purely local, non-commercial conduct. The Constitution denies federal bureaucrats power over affairs confined to one state -- including an individual's decisions about their health care or about plants grown in a backyard for personal consumption. Unfortunately, the Framers' view of the Commerce Clause didn't carry the day here."
**2. JONATHAN H. ADLER, assistant professor of law at CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY, has written about this case for National Review Online. He writes: "Under Raich, it is easier for Congress to completely displace state power with a comprehensive and intrusive regulatory regime than with narrow legislation focused on a discrete and limited issue of particular federal concern. So long as Congress could rationally conclude that the control of a noncommercial, intrastate activity is 'essential' to a broader regulatory scheme, a majority of the court appears ready to go along. This not only gives Congress the incentive to adopt more ambitious legislation, it also severely constrains any meaningful judicial check on federal power under the commerce clause."
**3. LEE J. STRANG, professor of law at AVE MARIA SCHOOL OF LAW, teaches property constitutional interpretation, federal courts, appellate practice and property. His writings address theories of constitutional interpretation, originalism, philosophy of law, and religion and the First Amendment: "Gonzales v. Raich is the most recent example of the failure of the so-called 'Rehnquist Revolution.' In the mid-1990s, liberal academics and politicians bemoaned what they saw as a conservative Supreme Court reversing the gains made by the Warren Court of expansive federal power. Raich -- in which Justices Scalia and Kennedy joined the majority -- shows that the current court has no interest in limiting federal Commerce Clause power." Strang has practiced in the areas of general litigation, class action litigation and constitutional litigation, and was previously a law clerk for Judge Alice M. Batchelder of the U.S. Court of Appeals (6th Circuit).
**4. SANDRA H. JOHNSON, J.D., L.L.M, Tenet Endowed Chair in Health Law and Ethics at SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY: "This Supreme Court decision is written very broadly and could affect all kinds of approved drugs regulated under the federal Controlled Substances Act. The ruling strengthens the federal government's power to regulate medical practice. It's not clear that the court can just draw a line around marijuana and require deference to the states in other areas of medical practice. That's the broader reach of this decision."
**5. MARTIN ADLER, Ph.D., director of the Center for Substance Abuse Research at TEMPLE UNIVERSITY School of Medicine, studies the pharmaceutical properties of medical marijuana. By understanding how the drug produces its effects, both therapeutic and harmful, he hopes to someday develop a therapy that will provide the benefit without the harm: "A greater knowledge of the cellular receptors that are triggered by marijuana could lead to the development of new varieties of drugs that, for example, have increased analgesic capabilities to treat pain, but decreased euphoric (pleasure giving) effects."
**6. CAROL KORNMEHL, M.D., FACRO, board certified radiation oncologist and author of "The Best News About Radiation Therapy": "I prescribe Marinol, a synthetic form of THC. It is useful for my patients with unrelenting nausea and with cancer-related weight loss. From a medical-legal standpoint, it is unethical to deny ill patients what they need to minimize their suffering. Therefore, this decision by the Supreme Court is a folly and must be overturned."
**7. NANCY DELOGU, attorney in the Washington, D.C., office of LITTLER MENDELSON: "Had the federal law been struck down, employers could have been required to allow employees to use marijuana on the job." Delogu, former general counsel at the Institute for a Drug-Free Workplace, notes the decision strengthens employers' rights to use drug testing and benefits America's workers who enjoy more productive, safer work environments as a result of that testing. Employers with state medical marijuana laws may still need to accommodate workers' medically recommended marijuana use, while they transition to a legal treatment.
**8. CRAIG BRADLEY, James L. Calamaras Professor of Law at the INDIANA UNIVERSITY-BLOOMINGTON, recently published an article on federalism and the federal criminal law in which he anticipated this case, and he plans to write a column on it for Trial Magazine. A former Rehnquist clerk and assistant U.S. Attorney, Bradley is very familiar with foreign legal systems. He was an Alexander von Humboldt Fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Criminal Law in Germany and a Fulbright Senior Fellow at Australian National University. His most recent book is "Criminal Procedure: A Worldwide Study." His teaching and research interests include constitutional law and criminal law and procedure.
ROUND-UP: SAME-SEX CUSTODY CASES
The California Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in three child custody and support cases involving lesbians who parted ways acrimoniously after becoming mothers. The three cases center on whether laws crafted to protect children by establishing clear parental rights and responsibilities for absent fathers apply when the estranged couples consist of two men or two women. Following are experts who can comment on child custody and support cases involving same-sex couples:
**1. JOHN MAYOUE, Atlanta-based family law attorney at WARNER, MAYOUE, BATES & NOLEN, P.C., is an expert in how the law on custody has evolved: "Courts are struggling with the whole definition of what is an American family today. Imposing old legal standards to modern situations only asks for chaos on the appellate level. I would rather courts adapt to society than impose rigid and outdated standards." Mayoue is the author of "Balancing Competing Interests in Family Law," a standard legal reference on the rights of third parties, including same-sex couples, in custody disputes.
**2. GARY BAILEY, MSW, president of the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SOCIAL WORKERS: "Social science literature confirms that children of same-sex parents are as healthy and well adjusted as their peers, and do as well on every measure of emotional, psychological, behavioral, social and cognitive development as the children of opposite-sex parents. Research has shown us that the critical factor for a child's well being is not the gender of the parents, but the quality of the parental nurturing. The National Association of Social Workers affirms that same-gender sexual orientation should be afforded the same respect and rights as other-gender orientation."
**3. STACY PHILLIPS, a Century City, Calif.-based celebrity divorce attorney: "Currently, the laws in California regarding gay and lesbian couples, and the fate of their children (if the couple's relationship dissolves), are ill- defined and do not protect all the parties as they should. Today, the parent who is not the biological parent, unless he or she has formally adopted the child or children, has no parental rights or obligations if the couple splits. Individuals who are gay or lesbian must be afforded the same parental rights and bear the same responsibilities as heterosexual parents. What is most important is that the rights and needs of the children should be considered first and foremost. What is best for them should be every court's priority. It is time there were very specific laws on the books, and I am hopeful that these upcoming cases before the California Supreme Court will establish a precedent."
**4. EVAN WOLFSON, executive director of FREEDOM TO MARRY: "Millions of kids are being raised by their gay and lesbian parents, and experts from the American Academy of Pediatrics to the American Psychiatric Association and others all agree that these parents are fit and the kids are doing well. Without the freedom to marry, these parents are not able to provide their kids important legal and economic protections and equal worth that marriage brings. Why punish these children by denying their families the security and safety net that comes with marriage? Those who care about children should make sure that their parents are able to give them the best care and stability that marriage can offer."
**5. LYNNE Z GOLD-BIKIN, former chair of the family law section at the AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION, is a gay-rights advocate who has represented same- sex couples in legal disputes: "A child doesn't care about the sexual preference of their parents; they just want to be loved and supported by them. Don't these parents deserve the same rights, and their children the same protection?" Chair of the family law practice group at Wolf, Block, Schorr and Solis-Cohen, LLP, Gold-Bikin has been a source for the Human Rights Campaign's FamilyNet, USA Today, Wall Street Journal, "20/20" and "The Abrams Report," among other outlets.
**6. ALEXANDER NIRENSTEIN, founding member of NIRENSTEIN, RUOTOLO & GONZALEZ, P.L.C., and former managing attorney of the Phoenix office of a multi-state family law firm, has represented many diverse and high-profile clients during his association with, amongst others, one of the most well-regarded family law and domestic relations practices in the country. During his tenure in New York City, Nirenstein worked closely with the president of the New York Chapter of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, and has dealt extensively with complex property distribution matters, the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Enforcement Act, which determines court jurisdiction in custody disputes that cross state lines, and international custody disputes.
**7. GREGORY ELLIS leads the appellate practice at the Los Angeles firm of GERAGOS & GERAGOS, and is certified by the State Bar of California's Board of Legal Specialization as a specialist in appellate law. Ellis prepared the amicus curiae brief on behalf of the Los Angeles County Bar Association and other signatories filed in the California Supreme Court in support of the interests of the children in three lesbian parenting cases.
**8. JOHN CULHANE, professor at the WIDENER UNIVERSITY School of Law, is an academic authority on family law, particularly as it relates to the rights of same-sex couples. He has spoken worldwide on the topic, and most recently, was a panelist in Philadelphia on the topic of civil unions and gay marriage. He also served a panelist on a Voice of America radio program about same-sex marriage.
**9. SARAH H. RAMSEY, professor of law and director of the Family Law & Social Policy Center at SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY, is an expert not only in traditional family law, but also in the inter-relationship between social science research and family law formation. She believes the debate on same-sex parenting involves important policy decisions relating to determining what is best for children.
**10. RICHARD STORROW, professor of family law at PENN STATE UNIVERSITY's Dickinson School of Law, is an expert on family law, particularly same-sex parenting and custody and assisted reproduction.
ROUND-UP: DESTRUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (continued)
We've added the following to items posted previously at http://profnet.prnewswire.com/organik/orbital/thewire/lst_leads.jsp?iLRTopicID =9590
**1. SCOTT GREENSPAN, of SEDGWICK, DETERT, MORAN & ARNOLD LLP: "The Supreme Court's decision represents a strong endorsement of companies' application of document retention policies and a stinging rebuke to federal prosecutions of companies that destroyed documents under such policies. The result of this decision is that prosecutors will be hard pressed to convict companies of witness tampering from the companies' application of their own document retention policies, unless the companies knew the documents might be relevant to a specific official proceeding."
**2. ED KETZ is an associate professor of accounting at PENN STATE UNIVERSITY and nationally renowned expert on financial reporting, corporate finance and accounting and ethics issues. Ketz is the author of eight books, including "Hidden Financial Risk," which is about accounting scandals and suggested improvements, and co-editor of "Advances in Accounting Education." He is also a columnist with "Accounting Annotations" in Accounting Today and "Accounting Cycle: Wash, Rinse, and Spin" on SmartPros.com.
ROUND-UP: TAX-CODE REFORM (continued)
We've added the following to items posted previously at http://profnet.prnewswire.com/organik/orbital/thewire/lst_leads.jsp?iLRTopicID =8971
**1. ROBERTA F. MANN, associate professor at the WIDENER UNIVERSITY School of Law in Wilmington, Del., can discuss tax-code reform. Mann is a fellow of the Washington, D.C.-based American College of Tax Counsel. She teaches and writes in the areas of federal income tax, advanced income tax, business tax and tax policy. Before her career turned to academia, Mann spent nine years with the national Office of Chief Counsel of the Internal Revenue Service. She then served on the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation, a committee of the U.S. Congress.
ROUND-UP: EMINENT DOMAIN (continued)
We've added the following to items posted previously at http://profnet.prnewswire.com/organik/orbital/thewire/lst_leads.jsp?iLRTopicID =6270
**1. D. BENJAMIN BARROS, associate professor of property law at WIDENER UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW on the Harrisburg, Pa., campus, has followed Kelo closely. He taught a unit on the case in one of his classes this spring.
_____ LEADS
**1. GOVERNMENT: U.N. WORLD ENVIRONMENTAL CONFERENCE CHOSE IRONIC VENUE. PETER CANNAVO, professor of government and environmental political scientist at HAMILTON COLLEGE: "It is ironic that in the 30 years since its inception, the U.N. World Environmental Conference was held in the U.S. for the first time this year. As the White House continues to dismiss the growing threat of climate change and Congress moves toward opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to oil drilling, this conference highlighted our leadership, not in conservation, but in unlimited material consumption. In opposing environmental regulations that might limit our breathtaking resource consumption, America's conservative leaders are promoting an unrestrained materialism that is quite literally a culture of death -- one that is hardly life-affirming or even truly conservative."
**2. POLITICS: COULD THE DEEP THROAT SECRET BE KEPT TODAY? STEVE KLEIN, communications professor at GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY: "Today, news is much more ubiquitous, and it permeates everything we do. With the Internet and blogging, anyone is a publisher and anyone can pretend to be a journalist. I think it would be much harder today to keep such a secret, as opposed to 30 years ago. But good journalists have been keeping their sources a secret since there were journalists, will continue to keep their sources, and, for the most part, will be successful."
**3. POLITICS: THE ETHICS OF DEEP THROAT. ARTHUR GROSS-SCHAEFER, professor and co-chair of the department of marketing and business law at LOYOLA MARYMOUNT UNIVERSITY: "The revelation that former FBI Official W. Mark Felt was Watergate's Deep Throat raises questions about the ethics of a top law officer leaking to the press. Was it ethical for Felt, a loyal employee of the FBI, to leak information to reporters? Some view him as a public servant, while others believe his actions were a breach of duty and Felt had other options at his disposal. Was he a hero or villain? His motives and his ethics -- indeed, even the legality of his actions more than three decades ago -- are now being called into question. Felt's role then and now will raise ethical questions and debate for years to come."
RSS