Resource Library

Topics

Filters

Select a Year Range
Clear Filters

Resource Library

New to the Resource Library?

Learn how to navigate, search, and use our resources effectively.

How to use the Library

Robinson v. California

The Supreme Court ruled California's law criminalizing drug addiction unconstitutional. The Court held the law punished a person's status, not their actions.

8th Amendment14th Amendmentaddictioncriminalizing addiction
(1962)

Linder v. United States

The Supreme Court overturned a doctor's drug conviction, ruling that good-faith medical care for addiction is outside federal control.

medical practiceaddiction treatmentHarrison Narcotics Act
(1925)

United States v. Behrman

The Court ruled that prescribing morphine to an addict violated the Harrison Narcotics Act. This act made such conduct punishable without requiring proof of criminal intent.

Harrison Narcotics Actmorphineaddictprescribingcriminal intentbad faith
(1922)

Webb v. United States

The Supreme Court ruled physicians could not prescribe narcotics solely to maintain addiction, only as part of a cure. This led to prosecutions of doctors for maintenance prescriptions.

maintenancemedical practiceaddiction treatmentHarrison Narcotics Act
(1919)

United States v. Doremus

The Supreme Court upheld Congress's power to regulate opioid distribution through the Harrison Narcotics Act, despite arguments about states' rights.

Harrison Narcotics Actopioid distributiontaxation
(1919)

Anderson v. Benton County

The court allowed a jail inmate's lawsuit to proceed, claiming officials deliberately denied his prescribed methadone. He alleged this violated his Eighth Amendment rights.

methadonejail8th Amendmentdeliberate indifferenceMonell liabilityprescribed medication

State v. Gee

The court upheld convictions for rape, sodomy, kidnapping, and robbery. Gee's statements about cocaine use were admissible as evidence to show motive and intent.

convictionsrapesodomykidnappingrobberycocaine usesubstance useintent

P.G. v. Jefferson County

The court ruled jails must provide prescribed methadone to pretrial detainees, finding likely ADA and and due process violations. The case resulted in over $161K in attorney’s fees.

methadoneADApretrial detaineesjailsdue process violationmedication accesscourt ruling

Addington v. Texas

The Supreme Court ruled in 1979 that involuntary commitment requires clear evidence of danger to self or others. This balances personal freedom with public safety concerns.

civil commitmentclear and convincing evidenceprocedural protectionsdue processinvoluntary commitment

Olmstead v. L.C.

The Court ruled that unjust institutionalization of disabled individuals, including those with substance use disorders, violates their rights. It mandated more community-based treatment options.

ADAdisability rightsinstitutionalizationcommunity-based treatmentSUDunjust institutionalizationsubstance use disorder

O’Connor v. Donaldson

The Court ruled it unconstitutional to involuntarily commit non-dangerous individuals capable of self-care. This principle applies to debates on addiction confinement.

Involuntary commitmentunconstitutionalnon-dangerous individualsself-careinvoluntary hospitalizationmental health

Kortlever v. Whatcom County

The court approved a settlement requiring jails to provide medication for opioid use disorder (MMOUD). Denying it likely violated disability and cruel and unusual punishment protections.

MOUDjailADAinmate healthcaremedication-assisted treatmentEighth Amendment

Jacobson v. United States

The Court held that entrapment requires the government to prove the defendant was already willing to commit the crime, not merely offered an opportunity.

Entrapment due processpredisposition

United States v. Russell

The Court upheld a drug conviction where a DEA agent supplied a precursor chemical. The defendant's existing intent to commit the crime was the deciding factor.

methamphetamine productionDEAconvictionsupply

Conant v. Walters

Physicians can discuss and recommend medical marijuana to qualified patients under the First Amendment, without federal interference, the Ninth Circuit ruled.

Medical marijuanaphysicianspatient rightsmedical recommendationsfederal interferencecannabis