"[17][18] Days before the spending bill was signed into law, Attorney General Jeff Sessions wrote to congressional leaders urging that the Rohrabacher–Farr amendment not be renewed.
[20] On September 6, however, the House Committee on Rules blocked a vote on the amendment, due to Republican leadership viewing it as too divisive.
[64] The medical cannabis advocacy group Americans for Safe Access subsequently targeted Schultz with a TV ad criticizing her vote against the amendment.
[65] The full text of the 2014 House amendment was as follows:[66] None of the funds made available in this Act to the Department of Justice may be used, with respect to the States of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin, to prevent such States from implementing their own State laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana.The Rohrabacher–Farr amendment became law in December 2014, but initially failed to have its intended impact, due to the Justice Department interpreting the amendment in an incorrect manner (as later determined by a pair of court rulings).
Contrary to the amendment's popular interpretation, the DOJ argued that only state officials were protected from prosecution, and not private individuals or entities involved in the production or distribution of medical cannabis.
[68] This stance conflicted with the DOJ's earlier position (leading up to the May 2014 vote), when it advised members of Congress that the amendment's protections could actually apply more broadly than intended, to cover recreational cannabis as well.
[69] After the amendment's enactment, DOJ enforcement efforts continued (per the new interpretation) against medical cannabis providers who were following state law.
[73] The DOJ publicly addressed the matter for the first time in April 2015, when a spokesperson confirmed the much more narrow interpretation of the amendment that was being employed.
[74] In response, both Rohrabacher and Farr strongly denounced the interpretation, and a letter was sent to Attorney General Eric Holder demanding an end to the prosecutions.
[77][78] In October 2015, a court ruling by U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer affirmed the meaning of Rohrabacher–Farr as its authors intended, providing supporters of the amendment with a key legal victory.
[79] Judge Breyer in his decision was especially critical of the DOJ interpretation, stating that it "defies language and logic" and "tortures the plain meaning of the statute", and was "counterintuitive and opportunistic".
[80] The ruling lifted an injunction against a California dispensary, the Marin Alliance for Medical Marijuana, and was considered to set important legal precedent inhibiting future prosecutions.