21 U.S.C. § 882

Injunctions

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 21 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Jurisdiction

The district courts of the United States and all courts exercising general jurisdiction in the territories and possessions of the United States shall have jurisdiction in proceedings in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to enjoin violations of this subchapter.

(b) Jury trial

In case of an alleged violation of an injunction or restraining order issued under this section, trial shall, upon demand of the accused, be by a jury in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

(c) State cause of action pertaining to online pharmacies(1) In generalIn any case in which the State has reason to believe that an interest of the residents of that State has been or is being threatened or adversely affected by the action of a person, entity, or Internet site that violates the provisions of section 823(g), 829(e), or 831 of this title, the State may bring a civil action on behalf of such residents in a district court of the United States with appropriate jurisdiction—(A) to enjoin the conduct which violates this section;(B) to enforce compliance with this section;(C) to obtain damages, restitution, or other compensation, including civil penalties under section 842(b) of this title; and(D) to obtain such other legal or equitable relief as the court may find appropriate.(2) Service; intervention(A) Prior to filing a complaint under paragraph (1), the State shall serve a copy of the complaint upon the Attorney General and upon the United States Attorney for the judicial district in which the complaint is to be filed. In any case where such prior service is not feasible, the State shall serve the complaint on the Attorney General and the appropriate United States Attorney on the same day that the State’s complaint is filed in Federal district court of the United States. Such proceedings shall be independent of, and not in lieu of, criminal prosecutions or any other proceedings under this subchapter or any other laws of the United States.(B) Upon receiving notice respecting a civil action pursuant to this section, the United States shall have the right to intervene in such action and, upon so intervening, to be heard on all matters arising therein, and to file petitions for appeal.(C) Service of a State’s complaint on the United States as required in this paragraph shall be made in accord with the requirements of rule 4(i)(1) of the Federal Rule 11 So in original. Probably should be “Rules”. of Civil Procedure.(3) Powers conferred by State law

For purposes of bringing any civil action under paragraph (1), nothing in this chapter shall prevent an attorney general of a State from exercising the powers conferred on the attorney general of a State by the laws of such State to conduct investigations or to administer oaths or affirmations or to compel the attendance of witnesses of or the production of documentary or other evidence.

(4) Venue

Any civil action brought under paragraph (1) in a district court of the United States may be brought in the district in which the defendant is found, is an inhabitant, or transacts business or wherever venue is proper under section 1391 of title 28. Process in such action may be served in any district in which the defendant is an inhabitant or in which the defendant may be found.

(5) No private right of action

No private right of action is created under this subsection.

(6) LimitationNo civil action may be brought under paragraph (1) against—(A) the United States;(B) an Indian Tribe or tribal organization, to the extent such tribe or tribal organization is lawfully carrying out a contract or compact under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act [25 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.]; or(C) any employee of the United States or such Indian tribe or tribal organization, provided such agent or employee is acting in the usual course of business or employment, and within the scope of the official duties of such agent or employee therewith.(Pub. L. 91–513, title II, § 512, Oct. 27, 1970, 84 Stat. 1278; Pub. L. 110–425, § 3(h), Oct. 15, 2008, 122 Stat. 4830; Pub. L. 117–215, title I, § 103(b)(1)(I), Dec. 2, 2022, 136 Stat. 2263.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, referred to in subsecs. (a), (b), and (c)(2)(C), are set out in the Appendix to Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure.

This subchapter, referred to in subsecs. (a) and (c)(2)(A), was in the original “this title”, meaning title II of Pub. L. 91–513, Oct. 27, 1970, 84 Stat. 1242, and is popularly known as the “Controlled Substances Act”. For complete classification of title II to the Code, see second paragraph of Short Title note set out under section 801 of this title and Tables.

This chapter, referred to in subsec. (c)(3), was in the original “this Act”, meaning Pub. L. 91–513, Oct. 27, 1970, 84 Stat. 1236. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 801 of this title and Tables.

The Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, referred to in subsec. (c)(6)(B), is Pub. L. 93–638, Jan. 4, 1975, 88 Stat. 2203, which is classified principally to chapter 46 (§ 5301 et seq.) of Title 25, Indians. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 5301 of Title 25 and Tables.

Amendments

2022—Subsec. (c)(1). Pub. L. 117–215 substituted “823(g)” for “823(f)” in introductory provisions.

2008—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 110–425 added subsec. (c).

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 2008 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 110–425 effective 180 days after Oct. 15, 2008, except as otherwise provided, see section 3(j) of Pub. L. 110–425, set out as a note under section 802 of this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 16 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1977–2022 · leading case: Safe Streets Alliance v. Hickenlooper

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Safe Streets Alliance v. Hickenlooper (2017) ca10 · cites it 2× “2492, 2497 (2012); 21 U.S.C. § 882 (a) (authorizing injunctions).”

United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative (2001) scotus · cites it 2× “The Controlled Substances Act vests district courts with jurisdiction to enjoin violations of the Act, 21 U. S. C. § 882 (a). But a "grant of jurisdiction to issue [equitable relief] hardly suggests an absolute duty to do so under any and all circumstances," Hecht, supra, at 329…”

United States v. Cannabis Cultivators Club (1998) cand · cites it 5× “See 21 U.S.C. § 882 (a). This is the only issue before the Court.”

Hemp Industries Association v. DEA (2022) cadc · cites it 2× “The Plaintiffs also assert that their action is nothing more than a “mirror image” of a government action brought under 21 U.S.C. § 882 . See Appellants’ Br. 45–46 (quoting Menominee Indian Tribe of Wis.”

United States v. Leasehold Interest in 121 Nostrand Avenue (1991) nyed “See 21 U.S.C. § 882 (1988). How such an injunction can be enforced apart from state and federal criminal statutes is not clear.”

Jones v. Hobbs (2010) ared “Similarly, the CSA provides that the district courts of the United States have jurisdiction to enjoin violations of that statute, 21 U.S.C. § 882 (a), but Congress provided no private right of action to enforce its provisions, McCallister v.”

United States v. Real Property & Improvements Located at 1840 Embarcadero (2013) cand · cites it 2× “Concourse thus contends that, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 882 and Supplemental Rule G(7)(a), it is authorized to seek an order from this Court preventing Harborside from using the San Jose Property in a criminal offense.”

United States v. Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (2001) ca1 “2d 722 (2001) (analyzing judicial-enforcement provision of Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. § 882 (a), and concluding that the district court “is not textually required by any clear and valid legislative command” in that provision to issue an injunction) (internal quotation…”

Kieffer v. United States (1982) mied · cites it 2× “41(e), 21 U.S.C. § 882 , and general equitable principles.”

Menominee Indian Tribe v. Drug Enforcement Administration (2016) wied “21 U.S.C. § 882 (a). The Tribe notes that such an action would of course present the federal question of whether the hemp exception to the Controlled Substances Act applies to the Tribe.”

Burley v. United States Drug Enforcement Administration (1977) tnmd “§§ 552 and 552a, 21 U.S.C. § 882 , and 28 U.S.C. § 1331 . Defendants deny that plaintiff is entitled to any relief, and have moved the court to dismiss this action.”

People v. Crouse (2013) coloctapp “¶ 55 Two additional factors point out why the preemption analysis in this case should not ask the wrong question.”

Show all 16 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.