File an injunction to stay a state law with doctor recommendation If a doctor recommends medical marijuana to a patient who lives in a state without compassionate-care laws established, can that patient successfully sue the state for access on the grounds that a doctor is an expert in health whereas legislatures are not? Another way to think about this is how the Federal Marijuana program works and how it protects registered patients from State intervention. (Since 1977, well before prop 215 in California).
Generally, no. Legislatures pass laws. The fact that someone else knows more about the thing they're passing laws about is utterly irrelevant -- the power to make laws is given to the legislature, not to experts. If the legislature thinks experts should make the rules on something, they can delegate (this is why the FDA approves medicine rather than Congress), but the legislature of a state generally has the power to pass any law that is not unconstitutional. Your analogy to paper money is a poor one: that's a federalism thing, not an expertise thing. Congress has established a system of paper money, and states can't interfere with that. It's not that the Fed thinks paper money is good, it's that Congress said paper money shall be a thing. That could stop a state from banning an FDA-approved drug; however, since marijuana is illegal under federal law, it would be odd to conclude that banning it at the state level as well is preempted. Legislators aren't inherently experts on anything (except being elected). That doesn't matter. They have the authority to pass laws, even if those laws directly go against the views of people who are recognized experts in the area. You appear to think there must be a judicial remedy against bad policy. You would be wrong. The role of the courts is not to decide what policies are good or bad; they are concerned only with what is legal. Deciding what policies are good or bad is a matter for the democratically elected representatives of the people, or for the people themselves in states with ballot questions. It is not the job of the courts.
No. A governor could not be held liable in a lawsuit on those grounds. Governors in every U.S. state have governmental immunity from liability in tort (and a lawsuit for wrongful death is a kind of tort lawsuit) for their official actions, and there is no U.S. state in which this kind of lawsuit would fall within an exception to that governmental immunity. There is not private cause of action against a state government executive branch official under federal law for a violation of "Trump administration official guidelines for reducing the covid-19 mitigation." Indeed, it isn't clear that a federal statute creating such a private cause of action that purported to pierce a state law official's governmental immunity from liability, even if it were enacted, would be constitutional. In contrast, if a corporation violated such a guideline, the violation of the guideline would be evidence of negligence, although probably not conclusive evidence, in a suit for wrongful death by a non-employee brought against the corporation.
Recall that federal non-enforcement of the ban no marijuana is via a non-enforcement memo from the Attorney General (which was revoked in 2018) and not an actual change in the law. Since sale of marijuana is illegal at the federal level, receiving money in exchange for marijuana is a federal crime. There are also federal laws prohibiting various forms of &quot;banking&quot; in a broad sense, if you know that the money is the proceeds of a criminal transaction. Taken together, it is not possible to devise a legal banking system to cover such transactions in the US, without a change in federal law (a small change, legalization, or a huge change, tweaking every little law involved in banking). The main concern is federal laws against racketeering and money laundering. The Bank Secrecy Act of 1970 requires finanicial institutions to report suspicious activity 18 USC 1956 starts the prohibition with Whoever, knowing that the property involved in a financial transaction represents the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity, conducts or attempts to conduct such a financial transaction which in fact involves the proceeds of specified unlawful activity and since sale of marijuana is illegal, those funds are covered by this law. The federal agency FinCEN receives and analyzes data on financial crimes, and they issued a &quot;guidance&quot; in 2014 regarding marijuana banking. They affirm the obligation to file Suspicious Activity Reports for marijuana-related businesses, which essentially tells banks to specially-tag SAR to distinguish cases that an institution reasonably believes comply with the Cole memo. But this only addresses the requirement for FinCEN reporting, and does not address other federal regulatory and criminal resources for crime prevention. Even just looking at the FinCEN requirements, dealing with a marijuana-related business imposes a huge ongoing burden on the financial institution. Civil forfeiture is a risk which a prudent businessman would shy away from. Property that is used in commission of a crime or results from commission of a crime can be sued and seized (that is a bit bizarre, but you can sue property), and the person who holds the property need not have committed any crime. Assets in the possession of banks and credit card companies are not immunized against civil forfeiture proceedings.
In the US, it stems from some statute, such as RCW Ch. 71.05 in Washington state, which starts by stating the rationale for the law, and which are to protect the health and safety of persons suffering from behavioral health disorders and to protect public safety, and prevent inappropriate commitment of persons living with behavioral disorders and to eliminate legal disabilities that arise from involuntary commitment etc. The various laws in this chapter make it possible to commit a person to a mental institute or to undergo involuntary therapy. There is a separate chapter, RCW 71.34, applicable to minors. In general, this law calls for professional evaluation and treatment, without legislating science. The trigger is generally evidence of a tendency towards serious harm or grave disability, with a requirement that the action be requested by a certain kind of behavioral professional. There are not many hard-coded limits on what can be ordered: while RCW 71.05.215 &quot;has a right to refuse antipsychotic medication&quot;, that right is overridden when &quot;it is determined that the failure to medicate may result in a likelihood of serious harm or substantial deterioration or substantially prolong the length of involuntary commitment and there is no less intrusive course of treatment than medication in the best interest of that person&quot;. Along with the legislation cited, there are also regulations which don't require legislative action (they are &quot;empowered&quot; by the statutes), which could specifically forbid a treatment, but again choice of treatments are left to the professional. In some other jurisdiction, it's possible that a certain treatment would be explicitly outlawed.
It depends on the applicable state laws granting emergency powers. The most recent decree in Washington State suspends garnishments and post-judgment interest. The governor was given broad powers by the legislature (RCW 43.06.220) to suspend laws in case of an emergency. If a state has no such powers (every state does) or if a particular action is not within the scope of the governor's emergency powers, then no. Otherwise yes. The governor of Washington has the emergency power to limit assembly, anything to do with flammables, sale of anything related to preservation of life, health and peace, and "other activities as he or she reasonably believes should be prohibited to help preserve and maintain life, health, property or the public peace". He also can suspend government enforcement actions, such as garnishment and post-judgment interest (and court proceedings resulting in judgments), an suspects statutory / regulatory restrictions on actions (could suspend the sales tax). He cannot, however, single-handedly write new laws. There is no existing provision that would allow cancellation of interest obligations, although the legislature has the power to restrict interest in various ways (such as the usury statutes). So without a new power being passed by the legislature, the answer is Washington is "no".
The constitutional protection afforded people in the United States for freedom of association is protection from interference by the government and its agents. Until the age of majority, or emancipation by a court of law, parents enjoy broad discretion over the activities of their children including with whom they can associate. Complexities do arise for children of divorced parents who disagree as to who can set the characteristics of how the children are raised. In these cases family court intervention is used to deem what's in the best interest of the child. Complexities can also arise for children facing medical treatment. The most common example would be a parent attempting to refuse specific care for their child. In these cases it's possible to get a court to deem the parents "unfit" in order to force the medical treatment to go forward. This is usually a high-bar to achieve as the courts don't want to interfere in the parent-child relationship unless there is no other choice. Such medical treatment can also apply to mental-health services. New York, as an example, allows the local commissioner of social services or local commissioner of health to give consent for medical, dental, health and hospital services for any child found by the family court to be an abused, neglected or destitute child. Oklahoma created the Parent's Bill of Rights (same link as above) which: prohibited the state from infringing upon parental rights, directed the board of education of a school district to develop a policy listing parental rights related to education, including sex education; prohibited a surgical procedure on a minor without parental consent—excluding abortion— and, prohibited a mental health evaluation of a minor without parental consent. You will find that it will take court intervention to interfere with parental discretion and that court intervention will likely need to find the parents unfit to make the decision. Assuming the advocacy groups you outline in your question are not providing medical care it is extremely unlikely that a court will interfere. The right of association is not implicated in your question because it is not the government preventing the child from participating.
Since this apparently amends the law giving colleges and universities the power to adopt and enforced various regulations, what it really means is that if such an institution adopts a rule in violation of this law, it may not legally enforce that law. It might also give an affected student a right to sue if such a rule is adopted and enforced. As a comment by ohwilleke mentions, such a law might well authorize a court to issue an injunction forbidding the institution from enforcing the kind of rule prohibited by the law. Note that it is not at all uncommon to have &quot;or else&quot; provisions in different sections of the law. For example Section 123 of the (hypothetical) New France state code might prohibit having a faked driver's license, section 124 prohibit obtaining a license through false or misleading statements on nthe application, and section 458 say &quot;anyone who violates sections 123, 124, 125, or 126 shall be fined up to $2,000, or imprisoned for up to 1 year, or both, as a court may think just&quot;. Thus it is not always easy to find what penalties, if any, apply to a code section.
The American Bar Association's Model Rules of Professional Conduct (Rule 1.2 (d)) requires that: A lawyer shall not counsel a client to engage, or assist a client, in conduct that the lawyer knows is criminal or fraudulent, but a lawyer may discuss the legal consequences of any proposed course of conduct with a client and may counsel or assist a client to make a good faith effort to determine the validity, scope, meaning or application of the law. Any advice to any client (including the President) to violate a law is against the rules of professional conduct. The American Bar Association and associated state bars publish ethics opinions to provide clarification. For example, the Arizona State Bar published an opinion about the effect of Rule 1.2(d) on a lawyer's ability to advise clients regarding activity that is permissible Arizona's Medical Marijuana Act, "despite the fact that such conduct potentially may violate applicable federal law".