United States v. White Plume

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that “the CSA does not distinguish between marijuana and hemp”
• “Under statutory interpretation, a statute is ambiguous if it is ‘capable of being understood in two or more possible senses or ways.’ ”
• “Under statutory interpretation, a statute is ambiguous if it is ‘capable of being understood in two or more possible senses or ways.’ ”
• “The Supreme Court has not declared ‘farming’ to be a fundamental right, and we decline to do so today.”
• “[T]he ongoing debate about the physical and psychological effects of marijuana and whether it had any medicinal value was a sufficiently rational reason for Congress to include marijuana on Schedule I.”
• CSA’s regulation of hemp is not arbitrary and irrational

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).