Osburn

MEMORANDUM **

1. Defendants were not charged with using marijuana. Defendants therefore lack standing to raise a due process challenge to the federal prohibition on marijuana use. See Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751 , 104 S.Ct. 3315 , 82 L.Ed.2d 556 (1984).

2. Defendants have not shown that they were prejudiced by the classification of marijuana as a Schedule I controlled substance, since 21 U.S.C. § 856 regulates controlled substances in general, rather than only Schedule I controlled substances. Because a rescheduling of marijuana would not have affected defendants’ criminal liability, defendants lack standing to bring an equal protection challenge to the indictment. See Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167 , 180—81, 120 S.Ct. 693 , 145 L.Ed.2d 610 (2000) (to demonstrate Article III standing, party must show that “it is likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision”).

3. Given the numerous public statements by federal officials indicating that marijuana remained illegal under federal law even after the passage of Proposition 215, see, e.g., Conant v. Walters, 309 F.3d 629 , 632 &…