Ezekial Flatten, et al. v. Bruce Smith, et al.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s dismissal of petitioners’ RICO claims against corrupt law enforcement officials for committing extortion and bribery based on Shulman v. Kaplan, 58 F.4th 404 (9th Cir. 2023). Shulman v. Kaplan held that as a matter of first impression, state law does not control in determining whether plaintiff suffered injury to her business or property for RICO purposes. Rather, Congress did not intend “business or property” to cover cannabis-related commerce. The Ninth Circuit did not consider the Fifth, Ninth, Tenth and Fourteenth amendment rights of the 38 states which have legalized, licensed, regulated, taxed and created property rights in cannabis or the property rights of those citizens licensed to produce and sell cannabis. Likewise, neither of the lower courts considered the limitations on federal legislative jurisdiction based on the Commerce Clause.

1. Should this Court reverse Shulman v. Kaplan and restore property rights in cannabis to a status equal to other property rights protectable under RICO?

2. Should this Court revisit Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005) and permit state licensed persons in possession of cannabis to rebut the presumption that all cannabis is part of interstate commerce with evidence that their possession is legal under state law and limited to intrastate commerce?