## Facts

- Federal prosecutors charged Jason Washington and others involved in a Montana medical-marijuana operation with offenses related to manufacturing and distributing marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA); Washington also faced a firearms count.
- For purposes of resolving the dismissal motions, the court assumed the defendants’ conduct fully complied with Montana’s medical-marijuana statutes in effect during the charged period.
- Marijuana remained a Schedule I controlled substance under the CSA throughout the relevant time.
- Defendants argued they reasonably believed their conduct would not be federally prosecuted based on (1) a Department of Justice memorandum describing enforcement priorities regarding state-compliant medical marijuana, (2) public statements by President Obama and other officials, (3) media reports about those statements, and (4) a tribal police officer’s assurance after an inspection that “everything looks okay.”
- Before trial, defendants moved to dismiss the indictment (or counts) on constitutional and equitable theories, primarily entrapment by estoppel and due process, and also theories tied to federalism and preemption.

## Issues

1. Whether entrapment by estoppel or due process barred CSA prosecution where defendants allegedly relied on DOJ guidance, political statements, media reports, and a tribal officer’s assurance when operating under state medical-marijuana law.
2. Whether federal enforcement-priority memoranda or public executive-branch statements can create immunity from, or a defense to, criminal liability under the CSA.
3. Whether Montana’s medical-marijuana laws limit, displace, or otherwise preclude federal prosecution under the Supremacy Clause and preemption principles.

## Decision

- The court denied nearly all defendants’ pretrial motions to dismiss the indictment.
- The court held that entrapment by estoppel did not apply because defendants identified no affirmative, authoritative, and specific representation by a federal official that their particular conduct was lawful under federal law.
- The court held that DOJ memoranda and generalized public statements about enforcement priorities did not alter the CSA’s prohibition of marijuana or create enforceable rights not to be prosecuted.
- The court rejected the view that state authorization of medical marijuana could shield defendants from federal prosecution under the CSA.

## Legal Principles

- Under the Supremacy Clause, state law may remove state penalties but cannot legalize conduct that Congress has criminalized under federal law; state medical-marijuana compliance is not a defense to CSA charges.
- Entrapment by estoppel is a narrow due-process defense requiring reasonable reliance on an affirmative assurance of legality from an official authorized to interpret or enforce the relevant federal law, typically directed to the defendant’s specific conduct.
- Nonbinding policy guidance and generalized political statements about prosecutorial priorities do not amend federal criminal statutes, do not decriminalize prohibited conduct, and do not create immunity from prosecution.
- The CSA’s clear statutory prohibition provides constitutionally adequate notice; discretionary or shifting enforcement priorities do not, without more, establish a due process bar to prosecution.

## Conclusion

The court refused to dismiss federal CSA charges against defendants who allegedly complied with Montana’s medical-marijuana regime, holding that federal law remained controlling and that neither policy guidance, public political statements, media reports, nor a tribal officer’s reassurance supplied the specific, authorized federal assurance required for entrapment by estoppel or a due process dismissal.


United States v. Washington, 887 F. Supp. 2d 1077 (D. Mont. 2012)