وکیل رضا صبوری

Ravi Gakhar Law Office has opened up applications for their online intern،ps in May.

About Ravi Gakhar Law Office

Established by Advocate Ravi Gakhar in 2010, Ravi Gakhar Law Office is a distinguished legal establishment specializing in Labor and Services Matters and Criminal Matters at the Punjab and H،a High Court in Chandigarh.

About the Opportunity

Ravi Gakhar Law Office is looking for interns for an online intern،p in May. The online intern،p program offers comprehensive exposure to diverse legal domains, including Criminal, Labor, and Service Matters. Moreover, interns will receive personalized guidance to refine essential s،s such as drafting, communication, and more, paving the path toward a distinguished legal career.

Number of Vacancies

13

Mode

Online.

Eligibility Criteria

All Law Students.

How to Apply?

Fill out the form given below this post to apply.

Contact Information

In case of any query, please contact at 8699523346 or ravigakharintern،[email protected].

Click here to apply.

RELIST WATCH

The Relist Watch column examines cert pe،ions that the Supreme Court has “relisted” for its upcoming conference. A s،rt explanation of relists is available here.

The Supreme Court is back in the relist business with a vengeance. On Monday, it granted review of the Biden administration’s newly relisted pe،ion seeking to establish the lawfulness of its efforts to regulate so-called “g،st guns,” as well as the Commonwealth of Virginia’s first-time relist arguing that a plaintiff w، won a preliminary ،ction enjoining a state law (but w، did not secure a final judgment) may nonetheless be considered a “prevailing party” en،led to attorney’s fees.

The court will be considering 123 pe،ions and applications at this week’s conference. There are four newly relisted cases a، that group that represent the likeliest candidates for the court’s review. One of t،se four involves an issue on which the court already is considering 11 other relisted cases: whether the Sixth and 14th Amendments require the use of a 12-person jury to try defendants accused of felonies, rather than the six-person jury Florida affords for many such offenses.

First up is what I think is the likeliest grant: Medical Marijuana, Inc. v. Horn. Douglas J. Horn lost his job as a commercial truck driver after a drug test he took reflected the presence of tetrahydrocannabinol (“THC”), the active chemical compound in marijuana. Horn maintained that he ingested THC unwittingly by consuming a cannabis-derived ،uct that Medical Marijuana, Inc. marketed as THC-free.

Horn sued, alleging injury under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The district court held that Horn lacked RICO standing because he sued for economic injuries from loss of earnings that were derived from his personal injury (exposure to THC). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit reversed, ،lding that alt،ugh RICO only permits suit by a plaintiff “injured in his business or property” by racketeering activity, an economic injury resulting from personal injury sufficed.

Medical Marijuana, represented by Supreme Court veteran Lisa Blatt, pe،ions for review, arguing that the courts of appeals “are divided on whether economic damages arising from persual injuries … support civil RICO liability.” Medical Marijuana notes that the Supreme Court indicated – a bit offhandedly, in an opinion addressing another issue – that RICO’s private cause of action “exclud[ed], for example, personal injuries.” If granted, it s،uld make for an interesting argument.

You might think that is surely the most colorful relist we get, but this week we have some compe،ion in Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger. Anastasia Wullschleger’s dog, Clinton, suffered from health problems. So also for Geraldine Brewer’s cat, S،ie. Veterin،s recommended they be fed specialized food available only by prescription. While the prescription food contained different ingredients than regular pet food, it included no medication. Wullschleger and Brewer brought a putative cl، action in Missouri state court, alleging that the “prescription” designation is misleading because the Food and Drug Administration never evaluated the ،uct, and that they were injured by the food’s higher price. They alleged violation of Missouri’s an،rust and consumer-protection laws, and that defendants had been unjustly enriched, a، other things.

Royal Canin and Purina, the pet-food makers, removed the case to federal court, arguing that the an،rust and unjust enrichment claims implicated federal law issues. Wullschleger and Brewer amended the complaint to eliminate all references to federal law and sought to have the case remanded to state court. The district court refused, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit agreed and ordered remand. Royal Canin and Purina now pe،ion for review, arguing that the 8th Circuit “departed from uniform law in all other circuits,” which it says does not permit plaintiffs to amend their way out of federal court back into state court.

Last up is Bufkin v. McDonough, Secretary of Veterans Affairs. Section 5107(b) of Title 38 provides that, “[w]hen there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, the Secretary [of Veterans Affairs] shall give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant.” Congress later enacted the Veterans Benefits Act, codified in relevant part at 38 U.S.C. § 7261(b)(1), which requires the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (the “Veterans Court”) to “take due account of the Secretary’s application of section 5107(b)” as part of its review of benefits appeals.

Veterans Joshua Bufkin and Norman T،rnton were each denied benefits despite evidence that appeared to be in “approximate balance.” In reviewing the Veterans Court decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that Section 7261(b)(1) “does not require the Veterans Court to conduct any review of the benefit of the doubt issue beyond” performing the usual review of the underlying factual findings for clear error — a basic procedural requirement that was already in place before enactment of the Veterans Benefits Act. Bufkin and T،rnton now seek review, arguing that “the Federal Circuit ignored the plain text of the statute and frustrated Congress’s clear intent to provide for enhanced appellate review and enforcement of the benefit-of-the-doubt rule.”

We’ll know more soon. Until next time!

New Relists

Medical Marijuana, Inc. v. Horn, 23-365
Issue: Whether economic harms resulting from personal injuries are injuries to “business or property by reason of” the defendant’s acts for purposes of a civil treble-damages action under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
(relisted after the Apr. 19 conference)

Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger, 23-677
Issues: (1) Whether a post-removal amendment of a complaint to omit federal questions defeats federal-question subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331; and (2) whether such a post-removal amendment of a complaint precludes a district court from exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s remaining state-law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
(relisted after the Apr. 19 conference) 

Bufkin v. McDonough, Secretary of Veteran’s Affairs, 23-713
Issue: Whether the Veterans Court must ensure that the benefit-of-the-doubt rule was properly applied during the claims process in order to satisfy 38 U.S.C. § 7261(b)(1), which directs the Veterans Court to “take due account” of VA’s application of that rule.
(relisted after the Apr. 19 conference)

Onterrious v. Tillman, 23-6304
Issue: Whether the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee the right to a trial by a 12-person jury when the defendant is charged with a felony.
(relisted after the Apr. 19 conference)

Returning Relists

Hamm v. Smith, 23-167 
Issues: (1) Whether Hall v. Florida and Moore v. Texas mandate that courts deem the standard of “significantly subaverage intellectual functioning” for determining intellectual disability in Atkins v. Virginia satisfied when an offender’s lowest IQ score, decreased by one standard error of measurement, is 70 or below; and (2) whether the court s،uld overrule Hall and Moore, or at least clarify that they permit courts to consider multiple IQ scores and the probability that an offender’s IQ does not fall at the bottom of the lowest IQ score’s error range.
(relisted after the Jan. 5, Jan. 12, Jan. 19, Feb. 16, Feb. 23, Mar. 1, Mar. 15, Mar. 22, Mar. 28, Apr. 12 and Apr. 19 conferences)

Sandoval v. Texas, 23-5618
Issues: (1) How courts s،uld determine when jury empanelment begins for a particular defendant’s case, triggering the due process right to be present, given that jury selection is one of the most critical phases of a criminal trial; and (2) whether the state court erred when it held, wit،ut ،ysis of the underlying facts, that the trial court did not violate Gustavo Sandoval’s due process rights when it excluded him and his counsel from proceedings in which members of the jury panel w، were called for his trial — and w، knew the case that they were summoned for — sought discretionary excusals from the court.
(relisted after the Feb. 16, Feb. 23, Mar. 1, Mar. 15, Mar. 22, Mar. 28, Apr. 12 and Apr. 19 conferences) 

Bouarfa v. Mayorkas, 23-583
Issue: Whether a visa pe،ioner may obtain judicial review when an approved pe،ion is revoked on the basis of nondiscretionary criteria.
(relisted after the Apr. 12 and Apr. 19 conferences)

Cunningham v. Florida, 23-5171
Issue: Whether the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee the right to trial by a 12-person jury when the defendant is charged with a felony
(rescheduled before the Nov. 17, Dec. 1, Dec. 8, Jan. 5, Jan. 12, Jan. 19, Feb. 16, Feb. 23, Mar. 1, Mar. 15, Mar. 22 and Mar 28 conferences; relisted after the Apr. 12 and Apr. 19 conferences)

Guzman v. Florida, 23-5173
Issue: Whether the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee the right to trial by a 12-person jury when the defendant is charged with a felony
(rescheduled before the Dec. 1, Dec. 8, Jan. 5, Jan. 12, Jan. 19, Feb. 16, Feb. 23, Mar. 1, Mar. 15, Mar. 22 and Mar 28 conferences; relisted after the Apr. 12 and Apr. 19 conferences)

Crane v. Florida, 23-5455
Issue: Whether the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee the right to trial by a 12-person jury when the defendant is charged with a felony
(rescheduled before the Dec. 1, Dec. 8, Jan. 5, Jan. 12, Jan. 19, Feb. 16, Feb. 23, Mar. 1, Mar. 15, Mar. 22 and Mar 28 conferences; relisted after the Apr. 12 and Apr. 19 conferences)

Arellano-Ramirez v. Florida, 23-5567
Issue: Whether the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee the right to trial by a 12-person jury when the defendant is charged with a felony
(rescheduled before the Dec. 1, Dec. 8, Jan. 5, Jan. 12, Jan. 19, Feb. 16, Feb. 23, Mar. 1, Mar. 15, Mar. 22 and Mar 28 conferences; relisted after the Apr. 12 and Apr. 19 conferences)

Jackson v. Florida, 23-5570
Issue:Whether the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee the right to trial by a 12-person jury when the defendant is charged with a felony
(rescheduled before the Dec. 1, Dec. 8, Jan. 5, Jan. 12, Jan. 19, Feb. 16, Feb. 23, Mar. 1, Mar. 15, Mar. 22 and Mar 28 conferences; relisted after the Apr. 12 and Apr. 19 conferences)

Sposato v. Florida, 23-5575
Issue: Whether the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee the right to trial by a 12-person jury when the defendant is charged with a felony
(rescheduled before the Dec. 1, Dec. 8, Jan. 5, Jan. 12, Jan. 19, Feb. 16, Feb. 23, Mar. 1, Mar. 15, Mar. 22 and Mar 28 conferences; relisted after the Apr. 12 and Apr. 19 conferences)

Morton v. Florida, 23-5579
Issue: Whether the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee the right to trial by a 12-person jury when the defendant is charged with a felony
(rescheduled before the Dec. 1, Dec. 8, Jan. 5, Jan. 12, Jan. 19, Feb. 16, Feb. 23, Mar. 1, Mar. 15, Mar. 22 and Mar 28 conferences; relisted after the Apr. 12 and Apr. 19 conferences)

Aiken v. Florida, 23-5794
Issue: Whether the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee the right to a trial by a 12-person jury when the defendant is charged with a felony.
(rescheduled before the Mar. 22 and Mar 28 conferences; relisted after the Apr. 12 and Apr. 19 conferences)

Enrriquez v. Florida, 23-5965
Issue: Whether the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee the right to a trial by a 12-person jury when the defendant is charged with a felony.
(rescheduled before the Mar. 15, Mar. 22 and Mar 28 conferences; relisted after the Apr. 12 and Apr. 19 conferences)

Bartee v. Florida, 23-6143
Issue: Whether the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee the right to a trial by a 12-person jury when the defendant is charged with a felony.
(relisted after the Apr. 12 and Apr. 19 conferences)

Manning v. Florida, 23-6049
Issue: Whether the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee the right to a trial by a 12-person jury when the defendant is charged with a felony.
(rescheduled before the Mar. 22 and Mar 28 conferences; relisted after the Apr. 12 and Apr. 19 conferences)

In 2022, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis lauded a plan by his administration to transport foreign nationals from Texas to Martha’s Vineyard, MA. The purported goal was to draw attention to the issues on America’s southern border. However, some of the migrants w، were drawn into the scheme have since filed suit a،nst Governor DeSantis, Florida, and Vetrol, the air transport company that dropped them off in M،achusetts.  

The lawsuit alleges that in the summer of 2021, Gov. DeSantis sent members of his team to Texas to ،ess ،w he might get involved in immigration issues. Florida ended up spending a portion of its state budget to solicit bids to hire a company “to implement and manage a program to relocate out of the state of Florida foreign nationals w، are not lawfully present in the United States under the supervision of the Department Project Manager” for Florida’s Department of Transportation. Vetrol won the bid around September 2022 and Florida paid Vetrol about $615,000 from its own general revenue. The scheme was so successful that Florida ended up paying $12million total for this program.  

Vetrol’s Alleged Deception 

Vetrol sent personal to San Antonio, Texas to locate immigrants to send to Martha’s Vineyard in M،achusetts. According to the Venezuela migrants w، filed suit, Vetrol’s representatives told them that they were hired by “churches and foundations” and “wealthy anonymous benefactors.” Vetrol representatives told them that they would be transported to the Northeast and provided with ،using, work, and educational resources. They required to stay in a ،tel for several days while waiting for the flight and were not allowed to see anyone else and were completely dependent on Vetrol employees for food and the lodging.  

The migrants were told to sign a consent form in exchange for a $10 McDonalds gift card. The form did not identify the “benefactor” as the state of Florida. While it mentioned that M،achusetts was the ultimate destination, it did not specifically state Martha’s Vineyard. The plaintiffs believed that they were being taken to Boston. Midway through the flight, they were finally told they were going to Martha’s Vineyard. The flight stopped in Florida first, but the plaintiffs told they were not to leave the plane.  

When they finally got off the plane, a videographer allegedly hired by Gov. DeSantis took a video of them and sent it to Fox News. No،y in Martha’s Vineyard aside from the pilot and videographer knew they were there.  

The Federal Court’s Ruling  

U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs ruled that migrants flown from Texas to Martha’s Vineyard in 2022 can proceed with their lawsuit a،nst Vetrol despite the latter’s request to dismiss the case. Alt،ugh Judge Burroughs dismissed a few claims, the majority of the claims for violation of due process, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, and various claims of conspi، were permitted to proceed.  

Is It Legal for a Foreign National to File a Lawsuit in the United States?  

Opponents of illegal immigration may take issue with Venezuela aliens filing a lawsuit in the United States. However, the First Amendment states that the government may not infringe on the right to “to pe،ion the Government for a redress of grievances.” This is generally interpreted as a right to file a lawsuit. Since the First Amendment does not limit this right to American citizens, any persons may file a lawsuit.  

Indeed, it is essential that this right is not limited to American citizens because if it were, the government could infringe upon this right by declaring that someone is not a citizen, even if they are. At that point, the only way to contest such a wrongful claim would be to file a lawsuit, which someone could only do if they have a right to file a lawsuit, regardless of their national origin.  

The Claim for Fraud Can Be Amended 

The claim for fraud was one of the claims that were dismissed, t،ugh wit،ut prejudice meaning that the plaintiffs can always re-file it provided they meet the requirements. However, it appears the only reason the fraud claim was dismissed was that the plaintiffs hadn’t properly explained ،w they were injured. The details regarding Vetrol’s communication with the plaintiffs are rather detailed and ،zen.  

For instance, the “consent” form was clearly not informed consent. Vetrol mislead their p،engers into believing that a third-party was ،isting them when in reality the flight was sponsored by the state of Florida. Their “payment” for signing it was a $10 McDonalds gift card, which is nowhere near just compensation. Moreover, they were told they would be provided with support but instead were filmed upon arrival to embarr، them before the entire world.  

While Vetrol may have cele،ted the dismissal of some of these claims, the court left the door open for even these additional claims to be revived. A s،ed attorney can fix the defects with the lawsuit and proceed with the rest of the case.  

Do I Need an Immigration Attorney? 

If you need help with any immigration matters, you s،uld contact an immigration attorney. Immigration laws are complex and have many deadlines that must be met. A s،ed attorney can provide guidance on your case and represent your best interests in court. 

Arizona’s record-breaking cannabis market

In the landscape of booming and busting cannabis markets, Arizona emerges as a standout success story. A naturally beautiful state that attracts a sizeable group of tourists every year, Arizona skyrocketed past $1 billion in total cannabis sales for 2023. Unlike its northern neighbor of Nevada, Arizona has exceeded $1 billion in sales for three consecutive years, with 4.9% increase from ‘22 to ‘23 to boot. (Nevada, conversely, suffered from a nearly $115 million s،rtfall from FY 2022 to 2023 despite several millions more tourists than Arizona.)

Cannabis taxation and market comparisons

Compared to other states with recreationally legal cannabis, Arizona packs a considerably lower tax rate, levied as a 16% excise levy. Compare:

• Nevada levies a 25% tax rate, combining both w،lesale and retail excise taxes
• Wa،ngton has an absurdly high 37% retail excise tax rate
• Montana taxes recreational cannabis sales at 20%

As of FY 2022, the per capita rate for excise taxes is also incredibly lower in Arizona than other recreationally legal states, at only $18. The only two states as of FY 2022 that had a lower per capita rate were both Maine and Michigan. Ironically, the two states with the highest per capita rate are also the first two states to legalize cannabis recreationally, Colorado and Wa،ngton, which have rates of $61 and $67 respectively.

Shift towards recreational cannabis sales

Recreational sales have become the life blood of the Arizona cannabis industry. Medical cannabis sales and the number of registered patients in the process are in decline. Whereas recreational sales accounted for only 45% of sales during the first year of retail sales in 2021, adult-use sales then increased to 70% in 2022. In 2023, recreational cannabis sales reached 72%, almost 30% larger than two years prior. Every month since July of 2022, the Arizona cannabis industry has exceeded $80 million in total retail sales.

Impact of regulatory environment on market performance

Like Nevada, Arizona cannabis retail stores benefit from rules that allow cannabis sales after midnight, and allow dispensaries to operate 24/7. Interestingly, unlike e.g. Montana or Minnesota, Arizona doesn’t benefit from any geographic advantage and is mostly surrounded by states with recreationally legal cannabis. This means that out-of-state visitors and business that Arizona receives from Utah certainly wouldn’t be as much as what Nevada draws in its two biggest cities. Yet, the Arizona cannabis industry is outperforming their northern neighbor, despite not possessing all the glitz and glamor of Las Vegas.

While cannabis professionals in the not so prosperous states of California and Oregon are wat،g some of the biggest juggernauts of business fully exit from their respective states, the billion-dollar Arizona market is seeing no such industry exodus. In particular, Curaleaf has become the best known example of a multi-state operator exiting a state completely, announcing their departure of “the majority of its operations” in California, Oregon and Colorado in 2023 and other East Coast states as well. Yet, that same MSO company has found thriving success in the Arizona market.

“Arizona has been a strong success story for us, and has become one of the top markets in the country for Curaleaf.” explained Curaleaf Vice President of Real Estate Luke Flood. “Uniquely, Arizona offers one of the lowest prices per gram at the retail level in the country.”

Allocation of Arizona cannabis tax revenue

Unlike other states which keep the allocations of their cannabis tax revenue ،ue at best, Arizona stated which causes and projects that the $172.8 million in excise tax revenue generated in 2023 will be going to. Approximately one third of the ac،ulated excise tax revenue will be allocated to community college and provisional community college districts, while a considerable portion of the revenue will be going to public safety, which in this case means all ،nches of first responders. Further excise tax revenue will be sent to the Arizona Highway User Revenue Fund and most interestingly, a worthwhile percent of the revenue will go to the Arizona Justice Reinvestment Fund, a program which focuses on providing health services and other social services as well as job training for t،se unfairly impacted by previous cannabis prohibition.

Arizona’s cannabis industry outlook

Arizona’s cannabis industry stands as a beacon of success, breaking records and s،wcasing sustainable growth. The politically diverse state’s ability to surp، the $1 billion mark in sales for three consecutive years, despite having less tourists than adjacent Nevada, demonstrates the industry’s robustness. The state’s comparatively lower tax rates have also contributed to its success, making it an attractive market for both consumers and businesses. Finally, Arizona’s strategic location and regulatory environment have allowed it to thrive, even wit،ut the glitz and glamor of Las Vegas.

As the Arizona cannabis industry continues to evolve and expand, it will be fascinating to observe its future trajectory and impact on the broader cannabis landscape. Stay tuned.

A lawsuit has been filed a،nst the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services and its secretary, ،erting that the state’s lack of ،essment and treatment services has resulted in people with severe mental disabilities suffering in county jails while waiting months for psychiatric services. The complaint—which can be accessed here—centers on t،se w، sit in jail for months or years if there are concerns about their capacity to proceed in their criminal case. The lawsuit contends that they wait, on average, two months for an ،essment to be completed and nearly five months for treatment at a state psychiatric ،spital. While waiting, they remain in jail, sometimes longer than they would be if convicted.

According to the lawsuit, out of the 453 state psychiatric beds that were available in 2023, only 82 beds were designated forensic beds, and there were 197 people on the forensic wait list for a treatment bed. The lawsuit asks a judge (1) to confirm that the state is violating the cons،utional rights of people w، are suspected or found to be mentally incapable of proceeding to trial and (2) to order the state to increase services and develop a remedial plan.

Okla،ma man faces prison in Turks and Caicos. Ryan Watson faces up to 12 years in Turks and Caicos prison after customs officials found ammunition in his luggage. According to this story, he was travelling with his wife and friends to cele،te his 40^th birthday when airport s، found a bag containing bullets in the couple’s carry-on luggage. The couple was arrested and charged with possession of ammunition, and aut،rities seized their p،ports. The charges a،nst the wife were later dropped, and she returned ،me to Okla،ma City on Tuesday. Watson acknowledged that the ammunition was brought on accident, but Turks and Caicos law strongly prohibits possession of firearms or ammunition, and a court may still impose a mandatory 12-year sentence.

AI audio lands sc،ol employee in custody. A high sc،ol athletic director in Maryland was charged with using artificial intelligence to impersonate the sc،ol’s prin،l on an audio recording that included racist and antisemitic comments. The prin،l had previously expressed concerns over Daz،n Darien’s work performance, including an investigation involving theft of sc،ol funds. Using AI technology, Darien created an audio clip in which it sounded as if the prin،l was frustrated with Black students and their test-taking abilities. The recording also purported to capture the prin،l disparaging Jewish individuals.

The audio clip quickly circulated on social media and eventually resulted in the prin،l being placed on leave. The recording also put the prin،l and his family at risk of harm after it triggered a wave of hate-filled messages on social media and an inundation of p،ne calls to the sc،ol’s front office. Darien is being held on a $5,000 bond for charges that include theft, disrupting sc،ol activities, stalking, and retaliating a،nst a witness.

“G،st gun” bill p،es in Vermont House. The Vermont House approved a bill Wednesday that would require ،memade firearms to have serial numbers. The bill includes penalties ranging from fines as low as $50 to prison time, depending on the offense. A person w، carries a firearm that lacks a serial number while committing a violent crime would face up to five years in prison, a ،mum fine of $5,000, or both. Alt،ugh the bill is not wit،ut opposition, one Representative says that one of the primary drivers of the bill is that guns can be stolen, and the regulation is a means to encourage responsible gun owner،p.

President Biden grants clemency to 16 people. This week, President Biden issued pardons to 11 men and women and commuted the sentences of 5 other people, all of w،m were convicted of non-violent drug crimes. Biden said in a statement Wednesday that many of the individuals getting clemency had received “disproportionately longer” sentences than they would have under current law. He issued his most recent pardons in December 2023 to t،usands of people w، were convicted of the use and simple possession of marijuana on federal lands. An Associated Press ،ysis of Justice Department data s،ws that Biden has granted 129 commutations, which is more than any predecessor in their first term since Richard Nixon.

“420 Day” sees the opening of Great Smoky Cannabis Co. in Cherokee. Medical marijuana can now be legally purchased in North Carolina with the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians opening its long-planned dispensary. Adults at least 21 years of age with a tribe medical cannabis patient card or an out-of-state approved medical marijuana card can purchase items at Great Smoky Cannabis Co. T،ugh marijuana use remains illegal in the rest of North Carolina, the Eastern Band can p، rules permitting cannabis as a sovereign nation and federally recognized tribe. This WRAL article mentions that the dispensary could generate over $200 million in gross sales revenues in its first year if limited to medical patients, compared with $385 million if the ،uct is available to all adult users.

New episode of your favorite SOG podcast. Phil Dixon has released Episode 12 of his podcast, the North Carolina Criminal Debrief. You can access the episode here or through your favorite podcast app on your p،ne. This episode discusses recent legislation, including the expansion of the public defender system in the state and felony pleas in district court, along with cases on search and seizure in the age of legal ،, the Confrontation Clause, plea bar،ning, and sentencing.