Judge Elizabeth A. (“Tex”) Copeland rejects the inventive pleadings of the trusty attorney for Jo Ann Sharp & Randall W. Sharp, Docket No. 7196-19, filed 9/16/22.  I’ll give said trusty attorney a Taishoff “Good Try,” despite Judge Tex Copeland’s short shrift.

“…Petitioners assert that the ‘federal government’s current regulation of intrastate production and sales of cannabis is no longer necessary and proper under the Commerce Clause.’ Although Petitioners recognize that the Supreme Court ruled to the contrary in Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005), they contend that the reasoning in Raich has been hollowed out by factual and legal developments, including the proliferation of state-sanctioned marijuana businesses (introducing new federalism questions), subsequent Commerce Clause jurisprudence, and the statement of Justice Thomas in Standing Akimbo, LLC v. United States, 141 S. Ct. 2236 (2021), where the Supreme Court declined to review the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit’s decision in the case below.” Order, at p. 1.

But the Supremes have said that, when inferior courts seem to have questioned the rationale upon which a Supreme Court decision rests, a court now presented with the issue where the precedent controls should follow that precedent, leaving it to the Supremes to overrule their former decisions.

As we know, the Supremes are nowise loath to overrule even long-standing precedents. As a betting man, however, I doubt they’ll overrule Raich.

So Judge Tex Copeland denies petitioners’ motion for judgment on the pleadings, and calls for a phoneathon.

But let not said trusty attorney be discouraged; he’s probably got his brief on appeal ready.