## Facts

- In 2012, Colorado voters approved a ballot initiative (Amendment 64) adding a marijuana-legalization amendment to the Colorado Constitution.
- Colorado then enacted laws and adopted regulations to carry out the amendment, creating a state-law framework that allowed marijuana possession and a regulated commercial market.
- The Colorado framework permitted, subject to state rules, marijuana-related activity including use, possession, home growing, and commercial production and sales.
- Nebraska and Oklahoma, where marijuana remained illegal under state law, claimed Colorado’s regime caused marijuana to be purchased in Colorado and transported into their states.
- Nebraska and Oklahoma alleged resulting harms, including increased marijuana-related crime and added demands on law-enforcement and judicial resources.
- The plaintiff states argued that the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) classifies marijuana as a Schedule I controlled substance and generally prohibits marijuana manufacture, distribution, and possession under federal law.
- They contended that Colorado’s constitutional amendment and implementing statutes and regulations conflicted with the CSA and interfered with the CSA’s objective of uniform federal control over illegal drug activity.
- Invoking the Supreme Court’s original and exclusive jurisdiction over controversies between states, Nebraska and Oklahoma sought leave to file a bill of complaint against Colorado.
- The plaintiff states requested (1) a declaratory judgment that Colorado’s marijuana-legalization amendment and implementing measures were preempted by the CSA and therefore unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause, and (2) an injunction barring Colorado from continuing to apply and carry out the challenged provisions.

## Issues

1. Whether Nebraska and Oklahoma should be granted leave to file an original-jurisdiction complaint against Colorado challenging Colorado’s marijuana-legalization amendment and implementing measures.
2. Whether Colorado’s marijuana-legalization amendment and implementing statutes and regulations are preempted by the federal Controlled Substances Act and therefore unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause.
3. If the suit were allowed to proceed, whether Nebraska and Oklahoma could obtain declaratory and injunctive relief barring Colorado from implementing the challenged provisions based on alleged cross-border harms.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court denied Nebraska and Oklahoma’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint, ending the attempted original action at the threshold.
- Because leave to file was denied, the Court did not decide the Supremacy Clause or CSA-preemption questions and issued no declaratory judgment or injunction.
- No special master was appointed and the case did not proceed to fact development or merits briefing.
- Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Alito, dissented from the denial of leave to file.

## Legal Principles

- The Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction includes controversies between states, but the Court’s practice requires a plaintiff state to obtain leave to file before an original action will proceed.
- A denial of leave to file disposes of the attempted original action without a merits ruling; it does not determine the validity of the challenged state measures.
- Claims of interstate injury tied to private third-party conduct (such as trafficking and possession) may raise threshold concerns about whether an original action is an appropriate vehicle for relief against another state.
- Justice Thomas’s dissent argued that, given 28 U.S.C. § 1251(a)’s “shall have” language for state-versus-state controversies, the Court should not refuse to hear such disputes, and that denying leave can leave the complaining states without another judicial forum for relief against a sister state.

## Conclusion

In this original-jurisdiction filing, Nebraska and Oklahoma alleged that Colorado’s marijuana-legalization constitutional amendment and implementing laws and regulations conflicted with the Controlled Substances Act and caused cross-border harms, and they sought declaratory and injunctive relief; the Supreme Court denied leave to file the complaint, so the case ended without any decision on federal preemption or the requested remedies.


States of Nebraska and Oklahoma v. State of Colorado, No. 220144, Original (2014)