## Facts

- California voters enacted the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 (Proposition 215), protecting patients and physicians from certain state penalties when marijuana use is recommended by a physician for serious illness.
- Marijuana remained a Schedule I substance under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA).
- Federal officials publicly announced that physicians who “recommend” or “prescribe” marijuana could face federal consequences, including criminal prosecution, revocation of DEA registration, and exclusion from Medicare/Medicaid.
- Physicians and patients alleged these announcements caused doctors to censor or curtail physician–patient discussions about marijuana’s potential therapeutic use.
- Physicians, patients, and related organizations sued federal officials, asserting that the threatened sanctions chilled protected speech and sought a preliminary injunction barring adverse action based solely on physician recommendations or discussions.

## Issues

1. Whether the dispute was justiciable (standing and ripeness) where the government announced a sanction policy but had not yet enforced it against the plaintiffs.
2. Whether plaintiffs satisfied the requirements for a preliminary injunction based on alleged First Amendment chilling of physician–patient communications.
3. Whether the federal government may discipline or investigate physicians under the CSA solely for recommending or discussing medical marijuana, as distinct from participating in unlawful distribution or possession.

## Decision

- The court held plaintiffs had standing and the claims were ripe because the announced policy created a credible threat of enforcement and present injury through self-censorship.
- The court granted a preliminary injunction.
- Federal officials were enjoined from revoking DEA registrations, initiating investigations, or taking other adverse action against a physician solely for recommending or discussing medical marijuana with a patient.
- The injunction did not bar federal enforcement against physicians who actually prescribed, supplied, conspired in, or otherwise knowingly facilitated unlawful marijuana distribution or possession.

## Legal Principles

- A credible threat of enforcement that predictably induces self-censorship can establish injury-in-fact and ripeness in First Amendment challenges, even without completed enforcement actions.
- Physician communications to patients expressing a medical opinion are protected speech; government action targeting the content of medical advice can violate the First Amendment.
- For preliminary injunction purposes, ongoing chilling of First Amendment expression constitutes irreparable harm.
- The federal government may enforce drug laws against unlawful conduct, but it may not punish or investigate physicians solely for recommending or discussing a treatment option where the enforcement theory targets speech rather than participation in illegal distribution.

## Conclusion

The court preliminarily barred federal officials from sanctioning or investigating physicians based only on their recommendations or discussions of medical marijuana, finding a justiciable First Amendment claim supported by evidence of chilled physician–patient speech while preserving federal authority to pursue doctors engaged in unlawful drug-distribution conduct.


Conant v. McCaffrey, 172 F.R.D. 681 (N.D. Cal. 1997)