

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
ASA Chief Counsel Joe Elford 415-573-7842 or ASA Media Liaison Kris Hermes 510-681-6361
The California Supreme Court issued a
unanimous published decision today in People v. Kelly, striking
down what it considered unconstitutional legislative limits on how much
medical marijuana patients can possess and cultivate. Today's decision
also affirms protection from arrest and prosecution for patients who
both possess a state-issued identification card and comply with state
or local personal use guidelines.
"The California Supreme Court did the right thing by abolishing limits
on medical marijuana possession and cultivation," said Joe Elford,
Chief Counsel with Americans for Safe Access, the country's largest
medical marijuana advocacy group. "At the same time, the Court may have
left too much discretion to law enforcement in deciding what are
reasonable amounts of medicine for patients to possess and cultivate."
Although the court affirmed that qualified patients and their primary
caregivers retain "all the rights afforded by the CUA [Compassionate
Use Act of 1996]," law enforcement can still arrest and prosecute if
probable cause exists. In keeping with the CUA, qualified patients and
their primary caregivers will still have an affirmative defense in
court. Advocates remain concerned that without guidance on personal use
amounts, police may abuse their discretion to arrest patients who are
in compliance with the law.
The defendant, Patrick Kelly, is a qualified medical marijuana patient
treating a number of conditions, including hepatitis C, chronic back
pain, and cirrhosis. Kelly was arrested in October of 2005 for
possessing 12 ounces and cultivating 7 plants at his home in Lakewood,
California. Kelly was convicted a year later by a jury, which concluded
that he had exceeded the state-imposed "limits" of 8 ounces of dried
medical marijuana and six mature plants. California's Second Appellate
District Court overturned Kelly's conviction on the grounds that
legislatively-imposed limits on possession and cultivation of medical
marijuana are an unconstitutional restriction to a voter approved
initiative (Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use Act of 1996).
Both parties in the case, Kelly and the State Attorney General, agreed
that medical marijuana limits should be abolished as unconstitutional.
Both parties also opposed the appellate court's invalidation of the
entire statute, Health & Safety Code Section 11362.77, which
protects ID cardholders from arrest and prosecution if they are in
compliance with local or state guidelines.
Further Information:
California Supreme Court decision:
https://AmericansForSafeAccess.org/downloads/Kelly_Ruling.pdf
Americans for Safe Access is the nation's largest organization of patients, medical professionals, scientists and concerned citizens promoting safe and legal access to cannabis for therapeutic use and research.
"We have trade and energy agreements with Iran. We will respect and honor them and expect others not to meddle in our affairs."
Although President Donald Trump has ordered the US military to enforce a blockade around the Strait of Hormuz, Chinese Defense Minister Dong Jun warned on Monday against any effort to obstruct Chinese vessels.
As reported by Business Today, the Chinese defense minister emphasized that his country and Iran have reached an arrangement allowing the safe transportation of Chinese ships through the strait, and he said the US should not subject them to its blockade.
"Our ships are moving in and out of the waters of the Strait of Hormuz," the defense minister said. "We have trade and energy agreements with Iran. We will respect and honor them and expect others not to meddle in our affairs. Iran controls the Strait of Hormuz, and it is open for us."
Chinese Defense Minister Admiral Dong Jun:
"We have trade and energy agreements with Iran; we expect others not to interfere in our affairs. The Strait of Hormuz is open to us."
China is issuing a warning to the US. pic.twitter.com/oIQK9845Ty
— Daily Iran News (@DailyIranNews) April 13, 2026
Trump announced a blockade on the Strait of Hormuz on Sunday, saying the US would not allow any ships that had cut deals with Iran for safe passage to be let through.
The blockade announcement came after US negotiators, led by Vice President JD Vance, failed to reach a peace agreement with their Iranian counterparts to bring an end to the conflict, which Trump launched illegally without any congressional approval six weeks ago.
The failure to reach a peace deal sent the price of oil upward yet again, as the price of Brent crude oil futures and WTI crude oil futures approached $100 per barrel.
Crystal Carey, general counsel at the National Labor Relations Board, represented Amazon during her time at one of the biggest management-side law firms in the country.
National Labor Relations Board General Counsel Crystal Carey proposed a settlement on Sunday that would unwind a major case against the e-commerce behemoth Amazon—a company that Carey represented when she worked in the private sector for corporate clients.
Carey, whom President Donald Trump nominated after firing the Biden-era NLRB general counsel last year, sent her proposed settlement terms to the judge overseeing the labor agency's case against Amazon, which originated in the final year of the Biden administration. According to Bloomberg, Carey proposed that Amazon provide two weeks' worth of pay to dozens of drivers who were previously employed by Battle-Tested Strategies (BTS), formerly one of Amazon's delivery service partners (DSPs).
Amazon, in turn, would not be required to admit to unfair labor practices or be "found liable as a joint employer." The Biden-era NLRB argued that Amazon was a joint employer of the BTS delivery drivers and thus required to recognize and collectively bargain with their union—something Amazon has refused to do.
Bloomberg noted that, if decided against Amazon, the case Carey wants to settle "could have led for the first time to an agency judge, the NLRB members in Washington, and, eventually, federal appeals court judges ruling that Amazon was the joint employer of drivers for one of its delivery service partners."
"Amazon contracts with thousands of such partners to manage hundreds of thousands of delivery workers," Bloomberg observed.
Before Trump nominated her to replace labor champion Jennifer Abruzzo as general counsel of the NLRB, Carey was a partner at Morgan Lewis, one of the biggest management-side law firms in the country. The Economic Policy Institute noted following Carey's Senate confirmation last year that Morgan Lewis "represents corporations known for violating workers’ rights, including Amazon, SpaceX, Apple, and Tesla."
"Morgan Lewis is also pursuing the legal challenge that the NLRB is unconstitutional, despite several former NLRB members being employed at the firm," EPI noted. (Amazon has also argued in court that the labor board is unconstitutional.)
Amazon donated $1 million to Trump's inaugural fund, and the company's founder, mega-billionaire Jeff Bezos, attended the inauguration ceremony alongside other big-name tech executives.
Despite her ties to Amazon via her tenure at Morgan Lewis, Carey argued that she was not required to recuse herself from the case she's working to settle. According to Bloomberg, Carey said in an interview that "because a year had passed since she herself represented Amazon and because Morgan Lewis wasn’t representing the company in the [ongoing joint employer] case, she didn’t need to recuse herself."
"The result will be fewer opportunities for creators, fewer jobs across the production ecosystem, higher costs, and less choice for audiences."
A group of Hollywood actors, directors, and producers on Monday published an open letter demanding the proposed merger between Paramount and Warner Bros. Discovery be blocked.
In their letter, the Hollywood heavyweights outlined the harms that would come from allowing Paramount—which is owned by David Ellison, son of billionaire Trump donor Larry Ellison—to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery.
"This transaction would further consolidate an already concentrated media landscape, reducing competition at a moment when our industries—and the audiences we serve—can least afford it," the letter states. "The result will be fewer opportunities for creators, fewer jobs across the production ecosystem, higher costs, and less choice for audiences in the United States and around the world. Alarmingly, this merger would reduce the number of major US film studios to just four."
The letter goes on to describe how consolidation in the entertainment industry has already "accelerated the disappearance of the mid-budget film, the erosion of independent distribution, the collapse of the international sales market, the elimination of meaningful profit participation, and the weakening of screen credit integrity."
Looking at the bigger picture, the letter notes that "competition is essential for a healthy economy and a healthy democracy," then goes on to praise California Attorney General Rob Bonta and other state AGs for filing legal actions aimed at blocking the merger amid fears that the Trump administration could rubber-stamp it.
"We are grateful for their leadership," the letter concludes, "and stand ready to support all efforts to preserve competition, protect jobs, and ensure a vibrant future for our industry, for American culture, and for our single most significant export."
Actor Mark Ruffalo, a signatory of the letter, published an article on his Substack page outlining his own reasons for opposing the merger, which he described as "the epitome of crony capitalism and the oligarchs consolidating more corporations and media power to shape the outcome of their business interests."
Ruffalo also said he's spoken with others in Hollywood who were reluctant to sign the letter over concerns about retaliation from Trump or Ellison should the attempt to block the merger fail.
"The people pushing monopolies such as this one use fear to keep the workers in line," Ruffalo said. "I have heard it time and time again from my fellows, they are afraid of retribution. Some didn’t want to sign because they are afraid. How sad is that? In America the artists are afraid to speak out against power."
Actress Jane Fonda, founder of the modern Committee for the First Amendment, said that the proposed Paramount-Warner Bros. merger "would be one of the most destructive threats to free speech and creative expression in our history," because it would put "unprecedented power in the hands of a single corporation that already appears to have proven itself willing to sacrifice integrity for political favor."
The letter earned praise from democracy and antitrust advocates, who argued that blocking the merger was necessary to stopping President Donald Trump's ambitions for a right-wing takeover of US media.
“The future of free media and a strong entertainment industry in America is at stake here,” said Norm Eisen, co-founder and executive chair of Democracy Defenders Fund. “This proposed merger would not only harm competition and creativity, it would erode the very bedrock of our democracy."
Matt Stoller, director of research at the American Economic Liberties Project, noted that "consolidation in Hollywood has been a disaster, and has led to the weak state of the industry," and said the Paramount-Warner Bros. merger needed to be blocked to prevent further damage.
"Not only does this kind of concentration hollow out creative markets," said Stoller, "it concentrates control over culture and information in the hands of a few unaccountable executives, and in this case totalitarian Gulf countries, undermining a free and pluralistic media ecosystem that democracy depends on."