21 U.S.C. § 903
Application of State law
No provision of this subchapter shall be construed as indicating an intent on the part of the Congress to occupy the field in which that provision operates, including criminal penalties, to the exclusion of any State law on the same subject matter which would otherwise be within the authority of the State, unless there is a positive conflict between that provision of this subchapter and that State law so that the two cannot consistently stand together.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 100
cases (24 in the last 5 years), 1973–2026 · leading case: IN RE: STATE QUESTION No. 807, INITIATIVE PETITION No. 423
IN RE: STATE QUESTION No. 807, INITIATIVE PETITION No. 423 (2020)
“Title 21 U.S.C. § 903 (2018) provides: No provision of this subchapter shall be construed as indicating an intent on the part of the Congress to occupy the field in which that provision operates, including criminal penalties, to the exclusion of any State law on the same subject…”
Safe Streets Alliance v. Hickenlooper (2017)
“Careful parsing is in order: 35 These private plaintiffs allege property injuries and assert (a) causes of action (b) invoking our equitable powers (c) to grant injunctive relief (d) against Colorado and Pueblo County, (e) in response to the State and County’s purported…”
Gaetan H. Bourgoin v. Twin Rivers Paper Company, LLC (2018)
“21 U.S.C.S. § 903 (emphasis added). Through this statutory provision, Congress has eliminated field preemption—but it has preserved the supremacy of the CSA where its provisions conflict with state law in a way that makes compliance with the requirements of both impossible.”
Gonzales v. Oregon (2006)
“[5] Title 21 U.S.C. § 903 reads, in relevant part, as follows: "No provision of this subchapter shall be construed as indicating an intent on the part of the Congress to occupy the field in which that provision operates, including criminal penalties, to the exclusion of any…”
County of San Diego v. San Diego NORML (2008)
“) The parties agree, and numerous courts have concluded, that Congress’s statement in the CSA that “[n]o provision of this subchapter shall be construed as indicating an intent on the part of the Congress to occupy the field in which that provision operates, including criminal…”
People v. Crouse (2017)
“” 21 U.S.C. § 903 (2012). The return provision requires law enforcement officers to return, or distribute, marijuana.”
White Mountain Health Center, Inc. v. Maricopa County (2016)
“” 21 U.S.C. § 903 (emphases added); see also Oregon, 546 U.”
Terry L. Madewell v. Mike Downs, Anthony P. Grootens, and John Prine (1995)
“1990) (recognizing the practice of federal adoption of local seizures, and sustaining that practice over objections that it violated 21 U.S.C. § 903 , which explicitly rejects congressional intent to “occupy the field” of forfeiture).”
City of Garden Grove v. Superior Court (2007)
“” ( 21 U.S.C. § 903 .) “This express statement by Congress that the federal drug law does not generally preempt state law gives the usual assumption against preemption additional force.”
Noffsinger v. SSC Niantic Operating Co. (2017)
“But this argument is overbroad and overlooks the operative provision of PUMA that is at issue in this case: the specific provision of PUMA (Conn.”
Emerald Steel Fabricators, Inc. v. BOLI OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIES (2010)
“" 21 U.S.C. § 903 . Under the terms of section 903, states are free to pass laws "on the same subject matter" as the Controlled Substances Act unless there is a "positive conflict" between state and federal law "so that the two cannot consistently stand together.”
Oregon v. Ashcroft (2004)
“21 U.S.C. § 903 ; see also United States v.”
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.