Skoric v. Vermont Department of Labor: A Federal and State Government Conflict

By: Alexandra Henriquez

Edited by: Lauren Levinson and Micah Sandy

Vermont transit worker Ivo Skoric turned to medical marijuana in the hope of finally alleviating his chronic pain and depression. [1] Skoric had been legally prescribed marijuana in accordance with Vermont state law. When Marble Valley Regional Transit District, his employer, learned of his drug use via a spontaneous drug test, Skoric was terminated and barred from receiving unemployment benefits. Skoric sued his employer and the Vermont Department of Labor for discrimination on the basis of his disability and his means to manage it, which he claimed violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The ADA, in 1990, held that no employer “shall discriminate against a qualified individual on the basis of disability in regard to job application procedures … or discharge of employees,” [2] stipulating that a qualified individual “shall not include any employee or applicant who is currently engaging in the illegal use of drugs.” [3] Such illegal use was defined in the ADA as “the use of drugs, the possession or distribution of which is unlawful under the Controlled Substances Act.” [4] Therefore, the Vermont federal district judge ruled that the ADA does not extend to disabilities treated with medical marijuana because the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 federally prohibits marijuana.

While the ruling of the district court seems straightforward, it demonstrates a more complex and longstanding issue of the contradicting legal status of marijuana at the federal and state levels. Marijuana’s legal challenges began in the 1930s, arising with state-level bans, which expanded to a federal crackdown with the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937. Despite initially delaying marijuana regulation due to the growing research on its medicinal use and the booming industry, the federal government soon followed its state government counterparts. [5] By 1970, the Controlled Substances Act federally defined marijuana as a Schedule I drug with “a high potential for abuse,” “no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States,” and a “lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.” [6] Nonetheless, changes to state-level laws have occurred over the last half-century, with 37 states and the District of Columbia legalizing medical marijuana. [7]  This shift is largely attributed to the discovery that medical marijuana could actually have medicinal benefits, which contradicts its original classification under the Controlled Substances Act. Recent studies have highlighted marijuana’s effectiveness in treating a range of conditions, including chronic pain, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, and the nausea associated with chemotherapy. [8] Research into cannabinoids has led to the FDA's approval of medications that contain cannabinoid chemicals for specific conditions, further legitimizing its medical use. So, while the FDA has “not approved a marketing application for cannabis for the treatment of any disease or condition,” they have approved a cannabis-derived drug product: Epidiolex (cannabidiol). [9] While these new findings have contributed to changes in an overwhelming number of state governments, federally, marijuana still remains a Schedule I drug.

While the scientific and ethical debate on whether marijuana should be legalized and how it should be regulated continues, we must also begin asking the question of the importance of cohesive legislation among the two levels of government. The ongoing discord between federal and state regulations might be more detrimental than beneficial. Concurrent powers, powers guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution that are shared by both the federal government and state governments, have long stood, not inherently producing conflict. Examples of harmonious concurrent powers are the powers to levy taxes, build infrastructure, and create lower courts. The issue arises when concurrent powers, instead of building upon each other like the ability to tax and create infrastructure, directly contradict one another. According to Article VI of the Constitution, the Supremacy Clause stipulates that state laws can not interfere with the execution of federal law. [10] Thus, concurrent powers are not necessarily always concurrent. State government marijuana laws are subordinate to federal law and are essentially left more as a political statement than actual legislation. In his plea for relief, Skoric articulates a significant critique, stating: “Medical cannabis law is a dead letter on paper, and the medical card is worthless if it renders the patient unemployable and uninsurable.” [11] Essentially, Skoric argues that the legal recognition of medical marijuana at the state level does not translate into tangible benefits it seeks to provide due to the conflict with federal law. While the legalization of medical marijuana on the state level should not automatically guarantee federal legalization under the nation’s founding principles of federalism and separation of powers, we should reflect on the costs of a contradictory legal framework.

The case of Ivo Skoric spotlights the intricate and often conflicting legal landscape surrounding marijuana law in the United States. Skoric’s legal battle, which hinged on the interplay between state law, federal legislation, and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), underscores a broader, more systemic issue: the misalignment between state-level and federal initiatives.

Notes:

1. Ivo Skoric v. Vermont Department of Labor (Marble Valley Regional Transit District), No. 2:23-cv-00064-gwc (U.S. Court for the District of Vermont, Feb. 14, 2024).

2. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12112 (1990).

3. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12114 (1990).

4. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12111 (1990).

5. “Did You Know... Marijuana Was Once a Legal Cross-Border Import?” U.S. Customs and Border Protection, December 20, 2019. https://www.cbp.gov/about/history/did-you-know/marijuana. 

6. Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, 21 U.S.C. § 812 (1970).

7. Sacco, Lisa  N., Joanna R. Lampe, and Hassan Z. Sheikh. “The Federal Status of Marijuana and the Expanding Policy ...” Congressional Research Service, March 6, 2023. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12270.

8. Arkell TR, Downey LA, Hayley AC, Roth S. Assessment of Medical Cannabis and Health-Related Quality of Life. JAMA Netw Open. 2023 May 1;6(5):e2312522. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.12522. PMID: 37159196; PMCID: PMC10170337. 

9. “FDA and Cannabis: Research and Drug Approval Process.” U.S. Food and Drug Administration, February 24, 2023. https://www.fda.gov/news-events/public-health-focus/fda-and-cannabis-research-and-drug-approval-process. 

10. U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2.

11. Ivo Skoric v. Vermont Department of Labor (Marble Valley Regional Transit District), No. 2:23-cv-00064 (U.S. Court for the District of Vermont, Feb. 14, 2024).

Bibliography:

Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. (1990)

Arkell TR, Downey LA, Hayley AC, Roth S. Assessment of Medical Cannabis and Health-Related Quality of Life. JAMA Netw Open. 2023 May 1;6(5):e2312522. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.12522. PMID: 37159196; PMCID: PMC10170337. 

Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, 21 U.S.C. § 812 (1970).“Did You Know... Marijuana Was Once a Legal Cross-Border Import?” U.S. Customs and Border Protection, December 20, 2019. https://www.cbp.gov/about/history/did-you-know/marijuana. 

Ivo Skoric v. Vermont Department of Labor (Marble Valley Regional Transit District), No. 2:23-cv-00064 (U.S. Court for the District of Vermont, Feb. 14, 2024).

“FDA and Cannabis: Research and Drug Approval Process.” U.S. Food and Drug Administration, February 24, 2023. https://www.fda.gov/news-events/public-health-focus/fda-and-cannabis-research-and-drug-approval-process. 

Ivo Skoric v. Vermont Department of Labor (Marble Valley Regional Transit District), No. 2:23-cv-00064 (U.S. Court for the District of Vermont, Feb. 14, 2024).

Sacco, Lisa  N., Joanna R. Lampe, and Hassan Z. Sheikh. “The Federal Status of Marijuana and the Expanding Policy ...” Congressional Research Service, March 6, 2023. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12270.

U.S. Const. Art. VI, Cl. 2.