No. 22-6248

Paul Tay v. Michelle Diane Tilley Nichols, et al.

Lower Court: Oklahoma
Docketed: 2022-12-07
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: anti-commandeering anti-commandeering-doctrine controlled-substances-act election-activities federal-preemption indian-treaties marijuana marijuana-regulation state-jurisdiction treaty-law
Key Terms:
Privacy
Latest Conference: 2023-02-17
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Does the Controlled Substances Act preempt State consent to use, possession, cultivation, processing, transportation, and sale of marijuana and any of its byproducts by individuals, under ordinary principles of federal preemption, notwithstanding State claims of anti-commandeering doctrine?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Does the Controlled Substances Act preempt State consent to use, possession, cultivation, processing, transportation, and sale of marijuana and any of its byproducts by individuals, under ordinary principles of federal preemption, notwithstanding State claims of anti-commandeering doctrine? ! 2. Does federal law, implicating Indian treaties, preempt State of Oklahoma | jurisdiction to conduct election activities, to include, but not limited to signature| gathering in support of ballot initiative petitions on tribal treaty land, where the State was not a party to treaties, under ordinary principles of federal preemption? | | | | | | | | | | @) :

Docket Entries

2023-02-21
Petition DENIED.
2023-01-19
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/17/2023.
2022-12-11
Waiver of right of respondent Michelle Diane Tilley Nichols to respond filed.
2022-12-01
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due January 6, 2023)
2022-12-01
Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner.

Attorneys

Michelle Diane Tilley Nichols
Melanie Wilson RughaniCrowe and Dunlevy, P.C., Respondent
Paul Tay
Paul Tay — Petitioner