By Joanna R. Lampe

Federal law generally prohibits the production, distribution, and possession of marijuana for both medical
and recreational purposes. In April 2024, news outlets reported that the Drug Enforcement Administration
(DEA) planned to change the status of marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) by moving
it from Schedule I to the less restrictive Schedule III. Such a move would relax some controls over
marijuana but would not immediately legalize medical or recreational use of marijuana under the CSA.
Notwithstanding the strict federal control of marijuana, in recent years, many states have repealed state
law criminal prohibitions on some marijuana-related activities, and medical and recreational cannabis
businesses now operate openly in some parts of the United States.
In response to the disparity between state and federal law, Congress has enacted appropriations legislation
prohibiting the Department of Justice (DOJ) from expending appropriated funds to prevent states from
implementing their own medical marijuana laws. Federal courts have interpreted the appropriations rider
to prohibit DOJ from bringing criminal drug prosecutions against certain persons and entities involved in
the state-legal medical marijuana industry, but they have differed as to the scope of conduct the rider
shields from prosecution.
This Legal Sidebar first outlines the legal status of marijuana under federal and state law. It then discusses
the medical marijuana appropriations rider and analyzes how federal courts have interpreted the
provision. The Sidebar closes with key considerations for Congress related to the appropriations rider and
the disparity between federal and state marijuana policy more generally.
Federal and State Marijuana Regulation
The plant Cannabis sativa L. and products derived from that plant have a number of uses and may be
subject to several overlapping legal regimes. In recent years, a significant divide has developed between
federal and state marijuana laws. On the federal side, the CSA imposes stringent regulations on the
cannabis plant and many of its derivatives. Activities involving controlled substances not authorized
under the CSA are federal crimes that may give rise to large fines and significant prison sentences.
Unless an exception applies, the CSA classifies cannabis and its derivatives as marijuana. Congress
classified marijuana as a Schedule I controlled substance when it enacted the CSA, reflecting a legislative

Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 2024. 5p.

By  Michael L. Perlin,  Heather Cucolo,  Deborah Dorfman

In this article, we offer – we believe for the first time in the scholarly literature -- a potentially (at least partially) ameliorative solution to the problems faced by persons with autism(ASD) and fetal alcohol syndrome/disorder (FAS/FASD) in the criminal justice system: the creation of (separate sets of) problem-solving juvenile mental health courts specifically to deal with cases of juveniles in the criminal justice system with ASD, and with FAS/FASD. There is currently at least one juvenile mental health court that explicitly accepts juveniles with autism, but there are, to the best of our knowledge, no courts set up specifically for these two discrete sets of populations.

If mental health courts (or any other sort of problem-solving courts) are to work effectively, they must operate in accordance with therapeutic jurisprudence principles, concluding that law should value psychological health, should strive to avoid imposing anti-therapeutic consequences whenever possible, and when consistent with other values served by law should attempt to bring about healing and wellness.

If such courts are created, we believe this will (1) make it less likely that sanism and other forms of bias affect legal decisionmaking; (2) make it more likely that those aspects of the defendants’ underlying conditions that may have precipitated (or contributed to) their criminal behavior be placed in a context that understands such conditions, and (3) best ensure that therapeutic jurisprudence principles be employed in the dispositions of all cases.

NYLS Legal Studies Research Paper No. 4515470, 80 pages

 By Lisel Petis

The practical application of the U.S. bail system is a complex issue that intersects with overcrowded jails, socioeconomic disparities, and public safety concerns. To better understand how these issues vary from state to state and to observe trends and areas of opportunities, we undertook a comprehensive analysis of bail reform laws across all 50 states. This analysis sheds light on the landscape of pretrial justice in the United States, outlines current trends in bail reform, and explores how states can expect bail discussions to progress moving forward. Several key areas of opportunity emerged in our analysis, including expanding immediate-release options, defining time limits for setÝng bail, using pretrial risk assessments, and encouraging the presumption of unsecured release. Some important secondary issues also emerged, including considering a defendant’s ability to pay bail, emphasizing the need for statewide pretrial services, and expanding the types of offenses that are eligible for preventive detention. Additional opportunities for improvement include integrating needs assessments and pretrial support. Collectively, these themes suggest that there is value in shifting away from the traditional cash bail system and moving toward a more equitable, efÏcient, and data-driven pretrial justice framework. Although these themes provide a guide for reform, the path to a more effective bail system will likely face challenges driven by political dynamics and evolving public sentiment. To navigate this landscape, policymakers should strive for balanced, common-sense solutions, drawing inspiration from data and successful models in other states. Achieving meaningful change in the bail system will require careful consideration, bipartisan dialogue, and a commitment to addressing the multifaceted challenges within the U.S. pretrial justice system 

Washington, DC: R Street, 2024. 71p.

By Christopher Wildeman

This article provides a critical overview in five stages of roughly 50 years of research on the intergenerational transmission of criminal justice contact. In the first stage, I document that research on the intergenerational transmission of crime and criminal justice contact focused primarily on crime until the mid-1990s, at which point research rapidly shifted in the direction of criminal justice contact (specifically, incarceration). In the second stage, I document that research on the intergenerational transmission of crime and the intergenerational transmission of criminal justice contact tended to use the same measures—i.e., self-reported and administrative indicators of criminal justice contact with minimal information on criminal activity—but discussed them in different ways. In the third stage, I review research on the broader effects of incarceration to highlight mechanisms through which parental criminal justice contact may independently influence children's criminal activity. In the fourth stage, I review research on the intergenerational transmission of criminal justice contact. In the final stage, I conclude by calling for new data collection efforts that provide high-quality measures of both crime and criminal justice contact of both parents and children.

Annual Review of Criminology, 2020.

By Scott Peterson, Ian Lambie, Claire Cartwright

Despite dropping crime rates and prison muster, pretrial population rates in New Zealand are growing faster than in other OECD nations, risking negative impacts on defendants and communities. Fourteen defendants and 18 stakeholders were interviewed about a bail support service's strengths and weaknesses. Officer-training quality, communication between stakeholders and access to practical and cultural resources were crucial to success. Defendants reported that professional staff support and having access to services were the most helpful aspects. Changes were positive overall, but the programme's implementation, resources (especially lack of housing suitable for bail), and structure (within changing pretrial legislation) were of concern.

The Howard Journal of Crime and Justice , 21 April 2024, 21 pages