Ten Republican governors ruled before the U.S. Supreme Court that “flexible” states have largely been allowed to legalize marijuana despite the federal ban, banning gender-affirming medical care for young people. He argues that this is an example of why we should also have the right to do so.
In court briefs filed in court Tuesday, South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster (R) and nine other Republican governors referred to state-level marijuana laws multiple times. If states can set their own cannabis policies even though cannabis remains federally criminalized, the same standards should apply to transgender health care laws, they said. Ta.
The brief is based on U.S. v. Skrumetti, brought by three transgender youth and their families who sued the state of Tennessee over a law banning gender-affirming care, including the prescription of medications such as puberty blockers and hormone replacement therapy. Submitted in. Therapy for transgender minors.
“When it comes to medical marijuana, states have approached the issue in conflicting ways,” the governors said. “Some states have legalized medical marijuana…other states now allow possession of marijuana for any reason despite controlled substance laws…while other states continue to Use is prohibited.”
“Just as states have the flexibility to regulate medical marijuana, vaccines, and abortion, they have the freedom to choose how to approach medical procedures for transgender children,” the governors said. Marijuana, vaccines, and abortion are examples of “states' well-established practices of legislating on controversial medical issues.”
McMaster's brief was joined by the Republican governors of Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Dakota and Utah.
Notably, while trying to argue that the state's cannabis laws support fundamental debates about transgender care, others such as Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) and South Florida Gov. , many state governors have strongly resisted legalization efforts in their states. Dakota Governor Kristi Noem (Republican).
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court on Tuesday heard oral arguments in a separate case by a truck driver who sued a cannabis company after being fired for a positive THC test that he claimed was caused by ingesting cannabis-derived CBD products. During their questioning, the judges focused on how the worker was specifically harmed by the incident and whether his losses qualify for triple damages under federal law.
In August, the justices separately heard arguments from the Justice Department in United States v. Daniels, which cited a recent Supreme Court ruling upholding the government's ability to restrict the federal government's ban on marijuana users from owning guns. claimed to be supported by. Second Amendment Rights of People Subject to Domestic Violence Restraining Orders.
The case was scheduled to be heard in high court, but was one of many firearms-related cases sent back to lower courts following last month's domestic violence ruling.
Delaware governor signs bill protecting banks that partner with marijuana businesses ahead of adult-use market launch
Photo elements courtesy of rawpixel and Philip Steffan.
Marijuana Moment is made possible by support from our readers. If you rely on our cannabis advocacy journalism to stay informed, please consider a monthly Patreon pledge.
