Legal Battles in Texas over Cannabis Decriminalization and its Impact on Local Sovereignty
In what could be seen as a fight for local sovereignty, Texas attorney general, Ken Paxton, is suing two cities within his jurisdiction over their efforts to decriminalize cannabis, raising constitutional concerns. The cities in question, Harris County and Austin, have recently implemented policies aiming to mitigate criminal charges related to possession of small amounts of Cannabis.
In Harris County, District Attorney Kim Ogg had issued a policy in 2017 to decriminalize the possession of small amounts of cannabis. Ogg’s policy allows individuals caught with less than four ounces of this substance to take a four-hour drug education class, rather than face criminal charges. This policy was deemed to save law enforcement’s valuable time and resources and to create a more balanced response to drug offenses.
The city of Austin, on the other hand, in 2020, passed a resolution stopped the city from spending funds on forensic testing of cannabis, indirectly leading to decriminalization. Nonetheless, these efforts towards cannabis decriminalization in both Austin and Harris County have come under legal scrutiny by Paxton, who filed lawsuits asserting that these policies are violating state laws that criminalize Cannabis possession.
Paxton’s primary challenge comes in his role as a representative of the State. Texas law prohibits the possession of cannabis, and Paxton argues that these local government policies are in direct contradiction to said laws. He claims the guidelines direct law enforcement officers to contravene state laws and establish illicitly a defacto policy of non-enforcement against those who violate these laws.
Paxton’s lawsuits against the cities raise concerns beyond just the issue of cannabis. As such lawsuits explore notions of local sovereignty, this implicates the nature of federalism within the United States and how much leeway local governments have in creating policies that differ from the state or national laws.
For instance, the lawsuit against Austin alleges that the city resolution infringes upon the Texas Department of Public Safety’s right to utilize funds for forensic purposes. By creating this policy, Austin has supposedly infringed on the state’s rights to determine where and how their funding should be used for the benefit of its residents.
On the other hand, the lawsuit against Harris County brings up the issue of prosecutorial discretion versus policy creation. While prosecutors can freely decide which arrests or citations will be prosecuted, Paxton asserts that Ogg’s policy has crossed a line into actual policy creation, which in his mind, Harris County lacks the authority to do.
These legal battles in Texas could be seen as a microcosm of the larger national debate over cannabis decriminalization, with states and local governments progressively easing restriction on cannabis use and possession, and federal law maintaining its illegality. As more territories venture into the territory of decriminalization and possibly legalization, the pressing question remains regarding how much authority local governments actually possess in relation to state and federal statutes.
This is a window into larger legal battles across the nation, which could impact how laws are made and enforced in the United States. As all eyes are set on Texas, the outcomes of these lawsuits will undoubtedly have far-reaching implications, setting precedents that could impact the future of not only cannabis law, but also the preservation of local versus state authority within the country. These lawsuits remind us that the road to cannabis decriminalization is not a simple one, and it will inevitably come with considerable legal debates and potential constitutional conflicts.