United States v. Langley., No. 20-50119 (9th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
In 2017, Langley pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography and was sentenced to time served and 10 years of supervised release. As required by 18 U.S.C. 3583(d), the conditions of Langley’s supervised release included that he “not commit [a] federal, state or local crime,” “not illegally possess a controlled substance,” and “refrain from any unlawful use of a controlled substance.” In 2017, Langley unsuccessfully sought amendment of the conditions of supervised release to permit him to use medical marijuana as allowed by California state law, to alleviate pain stemming from the amputation of his lower leg. Langley renewed the motion in 2020. Langley, who submitted a physician's opinion that marijuana was the best medical solution for his pain issues, argued that he has a fundamental Due Process Clause right to use medical marijuana.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of Langley’s renewed motion. The court held that it is bound by precedent that rejected the identical substantive due process claim. Even if state laws decriminalizing marijuana could constitute additional evidence under the test for determining whether a right is protected by the Due Process Clause, the court concluded that it is bound by its 2007 decision until it is overturned by a higher authority.
Court Description: Criminal. The panel affirmed the district court’s denial of Richard Langley’s renewed motion to amend the conditions of his supervised release to permit him to use medical marijuana as allowed by California state law. Langley, who submitted a report from a physician opining that marijuana was the best medical solution for his pain issues, argued that he has a fundamental constitutional right under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause to use medical marijuana. The panel held that it is bound by Raich v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 8850 (9th Cir. 2007), which rejected the identical substantive due process claim. Langley argued that the panel is no longer bound by Raich’s conclusion in light of the increasing number of states that no longer criminalize the use of medical marijuana for medical purposes. The panel wrote that even if state laws decriminalizing marijuana could constitute additional evidence under the test applied in Raich for determining whether a right is protected by the Due Process Clause, the panel is bound by the holding in Raich until such time as it is overturned by a higher authority. UNITED STATES V. LANGLEY 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.