## Facts

- Colorado voters approved Amendment 64 (2012), legalizing and regulating recreational marijuana under Colorado law.
- Nebraska and Oklahoma alleged Colorado’s marijuana regulatory regime conflicted with the federal Controlled Substances Act and increased interstate marijuana trafficking.
- The plaintiff states claimed cross-border spillover undermined their marijuana prohibitions and imposed increased law-enforcement and financial burdens.
- Nebraska and Oklahoma sought to invoke the Supreme Court’s original and exclusive jurisdiction over controversies between states under Article III and 28 U.S.C. § 1251(a).
- They moved for leave to file a bill of complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against Colorado’s implementation of its legalization framework.

## Issues

1. Whether the Supreme Court should grant leave to file an original bill of complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1251(a) for a controversy between states alleging cross-border injuries from another state’s marijuana legalization regime.
2. Whether the Court has discretion to decline to entertain an otherwise qualifying controversy between two or more states within its original and exclusive jurisdiction.

## Decision

- The Court, by per curiam order, denied the motion for leave to file a bill of complaint.
- The Court issued no majority opinion explaining the denial.
- Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Alito, dissented and would have granted leave to file.

## Legal Principles

- Denial of leave to file in an original action resolves only whether the Court will entertain the suit; it does not decide the underlying merits, including federal preemption questions.
- The Court’s order reflects its practice of treating motions for leave to file original bills of complaint as subject to threshold screening, even in disputes styled as controversies between states.
- In dissent, Justice Thomas argued that the “shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction” language of 28 U.S.C. § 1251(a) does not confer discretion to decline jurisdiction over controversies between states.
- The dissent further reasoned that discretionary denials are especially problematic where exclusivity would otherwise leave the complaining states without another judicial forum.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court declined to hear an original action by Nebraska and Oklahoma challenging Colorado’s recreational marijuana regime, leaving the dispute unresolved on the merits and prompting a dissent arguing the Court lacks discretion to refuse jurisdiction over qualifying state-versus-state controversies.


Nebraska v. Colorado, 577 U.S. 1211 (2016)