United States v. Stacy

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
• Decided: September 26, 2025
• Docket: 25-6029
• Status: Published

Opinion

Appellate Case: 25-6029 Document: 57-1 Date Filed: 09/26/2025 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals PUBLISH Tenth Circuit

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS September 26, 2025 Christopher M. Wolpert FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk of Court _________________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. No. 25-6029

MATTHEW ALAN STACY,

Defendant - Appellant. _________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma (D.C. No. 5:24-CR-00146-R-2) _________________________________

Michael Pabian of Michael Pabian Law Office (Robert M. Goldstein of Law Office of Robert Goldstein, with him on the briefs), Boston, Massachusetts, for Defendant-Appellant.

Nick Coffey, Assistant United States Attorney (Elizabeth Bagwell and Steven W. Creager, Assistant United States Attorneys, with him on the brief), Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Plaintiff-Appellee. _________________________________

Before TYMKOVICH, PHILLIPS, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges. _________________________________

PHILLIPS, Circuit Judge. _________________________________

Matthew Alan Stacy appeals the district court’s order denying his motion

to enjoin the federal prosecution against him. This criminal case arises from

Stacy’s use of a two-entity business structure to help his clients circumvent Appellate Case: 25-6029 Document: 57-1 Date Filed: 09/26/2025 Page: 2

Oklahoma’s medical-marijuana laws. In 2018, Oklahoma legalized the

possession, growth, distribution, and sale of medical marijuana. Okla. Stat. tit.

63, § 420 et seq. (2018). To lawfully operate a medical-marijuana business, an

individual or entity must meet certain Oklahoma-residency requirements. Id.

§§ 422(B)(4), 427.14(E)(7)(c) (2019). 1 These requirements form a barrier to

entry for individuals and entities outside of Oklahoma.

As an attorney, Stacy centered his legal practice on out-of-state clients

seeking to enter Oklahoma’s medical-marijuana industry. He devised a two-

entity business structure for medical-marijuana businesses that was designed to

hide the true ownership interests of their out-of-state owners. In this structure,

one entity obtained the required license and registration using the names of

Oklahoma residents, while the other entity housed the actual medical-marijuana

operations controlled by the out-of-state owners. Because of this scheme, Stacy

was charged with two federal drug counts under the Controlled Substances Act,

21 U.S.C. § 801 et seq.

In the district court, Stacy moved to enjoin his federal prosecution. He

argued that a congressional appropriations rider prevents the Department of

Justice (DOJ) from spending funds on his prosecution. The district court held

an evidentiary hearing and then denied the motion. Stacy now appeals that

1 For any cited Oklahoma statute, we rely on the version in effect at the start of the timeframe alleged in the indictment for each count. Unless noted otherwise, any revisions to the relevant provisions have no material effect on this appeal. 2 Appellate Case: 25-6029 Document: 57-1 Date Filed: 09/26/2025 Page: 3

denial. He argues that the district court abused its discretion by declining to

enjoin his prosecution through the rider. He claims that the rider bars the DOJ

from funding his prosecution, because Oklahoma’s medical-marijuana laws

permitted his conduct. We disagree. Because Stacy failed to substantially

comply with Oklahoma’s medical-marijuana laws, we conclude that his

prosecution falls outside the rider’s spending ban. The district court did not

abuse its discretion, so we affirm.

BACKGROUND

I. Legal Framework

This case deals with the interplay of federal and state marijuana laws.

Before delving into the facts of this case, we review the relevant legal

framework for medical marijuana under federal law and Oklahoma law.

A. The Federal Appropriations Rider

The Controlled Substances Act makes it unlawful “to manufacture,

distribute, or dispense, or possess with intent to manufacture, distribute, or

dispense” marijuana, as well as to simply possess marijuana. 21 U.S.C.

§ 841(a)(1); see § 841(b)(1)(A)(vii), (1)(B)(vii), (1)(D), (4); 21 U.S.C.

§ 844(a). Despite this federal prohibition, many states have legalized marijuana

for medical and even recreational uses in the last few decades. See, e.g., Cal.

Health & Safety Code § 11362.5 (1996); Colo. Const. art. XVIII, §§ 14, 16

(2024). The states’ loosening restrictions on marijuana has led to some tension

between state and federal law.

3 Appellate Case: 25-6029 Document: 57-1 Date Filed: 09/26/2025 Page: 4

Though marijuana remains illegal at the federal level, Congress and the

DOJ have since acknowledged state-level legalization and shifted their

enforcement priorities accordingly. In 2015, Congress began to enact an annual

appropriations rider that bars the DOJ from using its appropriated funds to

impede medical-marijuana laws at the state level. Consolidated and Further

Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015, Pub. L. No. 113-235, § 538, 128 Stat.

2130, 2217 (2014). The rider currently in effect reads as follows:

None of the funds made available under [the Appropriations] Act to the Department of Justice may be used, with respect to any of the [medical-marijuana states and territories] to prevent any of them from implementing their own laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana.

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024, Pub. L. No. 118-42, § 531, 138 Stat.

25, 174 (2024). 2 A version of this rider has appeared in every annual

appropriation since 2015. 3

2 The Full-Year Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2025 extended the rider through September 30, 2025. Pub. L. No. 119-4, § 1101(a)(2), 139 Stat. 9, 10–11 (2025). The rider is also known as the “Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment” or the “Rohrabacher-Blumenauer Amendment.” 3 Congress recently passed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which appropriated $3.3 billion to the DOJ for, among other things, “combat[ing] drug trafficking . . . and illegal drug use.” Pub. L. 119-21, § 100054(2), 139 Stat. 72, 390 (2025). No provision of this act bars the DOJ from using the newly appropriated funds to prevent the states’ implementation of their medical- marijuana laws. See generally id. § 10101 et seq. But the DOJ has yet to decide how to spend these funds, so the parties agree that the new funds do not affect this appeal. 4 Appellate Case: 25-6029 Document: 57-1 Date Filed: 09/26/2025 Page: 5

B. Oklahoma’s Medical-Marijuana Laws

Like the Controlled Substances Act, Oklahoma’s Uniform Controlled

Substances Act makes it unlawful to distribute, dispense, manufacture, or

possess marijuana. Okla. Stat. tit. 63, § 2-401(A)(1), (C)(2) (2019); id. § 2-

402(A) (2019); id. § 2-204 (2019) (including “marihuana” as a Schedule I

controlled substance). But in June 2018, Oklahoma legalized medical marijuana

through a state ballot initiative. § 422 (enacted by the ballot initiative); see

Cloudi Mornings, LLC. v. City of Broken Arrow, 454 P.3d 753, 755 (Okla.

2019). About a year later, the state legislature passed the Oklahoma Medical

Marijuana and Patient Protection Act to regulate the legalized use,

manufacture, and distribution of medical marijuana. Okla. Stat. tit. 63, § 427.1

et seq. (2019). These laws govern the formation and operation of medical-

marijuana businesses in Oklahoma.

Under Oklahoma law, an individual seeking to establish a medical-

marijuana business must have two types of authorizations:

First, the individual must receive a medical-marijuana business license

from the Oklahoma Medical Marijuana Authority (OMMA). § 422(C); see Okla.

Stat. tit. 63, § 2-302(L) (2019); § 427.14. Oklahoma law sets out various

requirements for the license, including a residency requirement.

§ 427.14(E)(7)(c). To meet the residency requirement, “any applicant applying

as an entity” must “show that seventy-five percent (75%) of all members,

managers, executive officers, partners, board members or any other form of

5 Appellate Case: 25-6029 Document: 57-1 Date Filed: 09/26/2025 Page: 6

business ownership are Oklahoma residents[.]” Id.; see also § 422(B)(4). 4 The

application must “disclose all ownership interests” to meet this threshold.

§ 427.14(E)(7)(e). Those ownership interests include “any other person holding

an interest or convertible note in any entity which owns, operates or manages a

licensed facility[.]” Okla. Stat. tit. 63, § 427.2(46)(i) (2019). And Oklahoma

law further requires that the application “be complete and accurate in every

detail” with information submitted “in a full, faithful, truthful and fair

manner.” § 427.14(E)(4), (K). So long as the application meets the listed

criteria under Oklahoma law, the OMMA must approve the license. 5 §§ 422(B),

427.14(E)(7).

Second, the individual must “obtain a registration issued by the”

Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs Control (OBN). § 2-

302(A); see also § 427.14(E)(12). This registration allows the individual to

manufacture, distribute, or dispense medical marijuana. § 2-302(A). Without

the registration, these acts would violate the Uniform Controlled Substances

4 Even before the Oklahoma legislature enacted the Oklahoma Medical Marijuana and Patient Protection Act, a medical-marijuana business had to show that “ownership of non-Oklahoma residents” did “not exceed twenty-five percent (25%)[.]” § 422(B)(4). The act later defined an Oklahoma resident as someone who has resided in Oklahoma “for at least two (2) years immediately preceding the date of application or five (5) years of continuous Oklahoma residency during the preceding twenty-five (25) years immediately preceding the date of application.” § 427.14(E)(11). 5 The Oklahoma Medical Marijuana and Patient Protection Act established the OMMA within the Oklahoma State Department of Health. Okla. Stat. tit. 63, § 427.3(A) (2019). 6 Appellate Case: 25-6029 Document: 57-1 Date Filed: 09/26/2025 Page: 7

Act. § 2-401(A)(1), (C)(2); Okla. Admin. Code § 475:10-1-9(c) (2019). With

this legal framework in mind, we turn to the facts of the case.

II. Factual Background

From August 2019 to at least June 2021, Stacy allegedly conspired with

others to subvert Oklahoma’s residency requirements for medical-marijuana

businesses through a “ghost-licensing scheme.” He worked with a real-estate

agent to establish marijuana farms (also known as “grows”) for non-Oklahoma

residents. As a licensed attorney, Stacy set up a business structure designed to

hide the true owners of various marijuana businesses via his law firm, Stacy

Legal Group (SLG). We explain the business structure and then discuss the

OBN’s investigation.

A. The Two-Entity Business Structure

Through SLG, Stacy created a two-entity business structure to facilitate

commercial medical-marijuana grows for his non-resident clients. The business

structure required three steps. First, Stacy would form a limited liability

company (LLC) with Oklahoma-resident ownership of at least 75% to meet the

license requirements under sections 422(B) and 427.14(E). The non-resident

clients would then compose the other 25% ownership interest. This LLC served

as the license-holding entity (the “licensing company”). The licensing company

would apply for the requisite OMMA license and OBN registration to grow

medical marijuana.

7 Appellate Case: 25-6029 Document: 57-1 Date Filed: 09/26/2025 Page: 8

Second, Stacy would form another LLC owned by his non-resident

clients. The non-resident clients, in turn, would manage and operate the

commercial medical-marijuana grow through this second LLC (the “operating

company”). The operating company did not apply for either an OMMA license

or an OBN registration.

Third, Stacy would set up a management agreement between the licensing

company and the operating company. As part of the agreement, the licensing

company would grant the operating company (1) sole responsibility “for the

lawful and profitable growth, cultivation, harvest, and production of

marijuana,” Supp. App. at 31; (2) the right to sell the marijuana production; and

(3) “[a] management fee” equal to 100% of the revenue generated by the sale of

the grown marijuana, id. at 37. In exchange, the operating company would pay

an annual fee of up to $15,000 to the licensing company. The proceeds from

this annual fee compensated the Oklahoma residents in the licensing company.

Stacy repeatedly set up this two-entity business structure for his out-of-

state clients. In the license applications, he would often recycle the same

Oklahoma residents to reach the required 75% threshold. For example, one

Oklahoma resident, Helen Carrillo, was involved in the formation of over sixty

licensing companies. The Oklahoma residents typically had little to no

knowledge of the marijuana operations. See, e.g., Supp. App. at 145 (Kylie

Kennedy testifying that she consented to the use of her name for only one

license application, even though Stacy used her name for additional

8 Appellate Case: 25-6029 Document: 57-1 Date Filed: 09/26/2025 Page: 9

applications); id. at 156–57 (Crystal Huynh testifying that she never consented

to Stacy’s using her name on a license application); id. at 221–22 (Helen

Carrillo stating that, other than receiving $5,000 for Stacy’s using her name in

each license, she was “out of it completely”). Stacy did not disclose the two-

entity business structure to the OMMA or OBN when applying for licenses and

registrations on behalf of the licensing companies.

B. The OBN Investigation

Stacy’s two-entity licensing scheme caught the attention of OBN agents.

In 2018, OBN agents began to investigate irregularities with certain OBN

registrations. An agent had noticed that multiple OBN registrations listed the

same address in Blanchard, Oklahoma. That address consisted of an empty field

located across the street from Stacy’s residence. Further investigation revealed

that over 100 OMMA licenses listed that address. These irregularities led to

(i) OBN searches of the marijuana-grow sites, (ii) an investigation of the

property that Stacy leased to a grow client, and (iii) meetings between Stacy

and the OBN. We describe these events below.

1. Searches of Marijuana Grows

Starting in 2020, the OBN searched various properties that Stacy’s clients

used to cultivate marijuana. At multiple properties, OBN agents discovered that

the grows violated Oklahoma law. In June 2020, OBN agents executed a search

warrant on King Happy Farms, the grow operations for one of Stacy’s clients.

9 Appellate Case: 25-6029 Document: 57-1 Date Filed: 09/26/2025 Page: 10

They seized 14,776 marijuana plants and found evidence of human trafficking.

At that time, King Happy Farms did not possess an OBN registration.

During the search, OBN Chief Agent Williams called Stacy to tell him

that a commercial grow operation needed both an OMMA license and an OBN

registration. He told Stacy that growing marijuana without an OBN registration

violated criminal drug laws. Stacy also spoke to OBN’s general counsel by

phone. The general counsel likewise advised Stacy that growing marijuana

without an OBN registration or OMMA license was a criminal violation. That

same day, Stacy applied for King Happy Farms’s OBN registration, which OBN

granted about a month later. Despite his conversations with Agent Williams and

the general counsel, Stacy still advised at least one client that she could grow

marijuana before receiving an OBN registration. See Supp. App. at 189–90

(informing client Guan Rong Yang that she could grow marijuana with only a

grower license).

Between July 2020 and March 2021, OBN agents searched other

marijuana grows associated with Stacy. See, e.g., App. vol. V, at 64–70 (Ping

Two, LLC, July 2020), 175–77 (Lama Green LLC, December 2020); Supp.

App. at 246–47 (Zhical Green LLC, March 2021). The agents’ searches

typically yielded the same information: they found marijuana growth before the

companies obtained OBN registrations and a failure to comply with required

10 Appellate Case: 25-6029 Document: 57-1 Date Filed: 09/26/2025 Page: 11

security measures. The agents cited most violations as administrative violations

but flagged a few as criminal violations. 6

2. Property Leased to a Grow Client (X Fortune Inc.)

Besides providing legal counsel, Stacy served as the landlord for a

marijuana-grow client. In September 2020, Stacy leased a property located in

Blanchard to X Fortune Inc. for its medical-marijuana grow business. The lease

stipulated that the property could be used for “any lawful purpose,” App. vol.

VI, at 1, but advised that the cultivation, production, and sale of marijuana was

illegal under federal law, id. at 15. The lease also acknowledged that the

property was to “be used by [the] Tenant to carry out a lawful cannabis related

business in accordance with Oklahoma marijuana law and regulations[.]” Id. at

16. X Fortune never received the appropriate OMMA license but began growing

marijuana on the leased property anyway. One of the tenants testified that Stacy

knew about the marijuana grow on the property and knew that they had no

license.

3. Meetings with OBN

By February 2021, the OBN had inspected several grows that listed Helen

Carrillo as the owner of the licensing companies. But at those inspections, the

6 At the evidentiary hearing, Chief Agent Williams explained that administrative violations are “not mutually exclusive of criminal investigation.” App. vol. III, at 261. He stated that various reasons may cause agents to initially cite a criminal violation as an administrative one, such as low personnel numbers at a search, the need for further investigation, or not wanting to alert the target of a criminal investigation. Id. 11 Appellate Case: 25-6029 Document: 57-1 Date Filed: 09/26/2025 Page: 12

grow-site workers did not know who Carrillo was. The OBN agents discovered

that, apart from the initial applications for OMMA licenses, Carrillo was not

involved in any of the grows.

On March 1, 2021, OBN agents spoke with Carrillo about her role in the

various marijuana grows. Carrillo had little information about the grows and

was surprised by the number of licenses listing her as the owner. She stated that

she merely received a $5,000 payment for each license that used her name.

Toward the end of the meeting, the OBN agents spoke with Stacy over the

phone, during which Stacy shared his two-entity business structure with the

agents. After Stacy disclosed this information, an agent requested that he

inform the OBN’s general counsel of this structure.

Stacy met with the OBN’s general counsel on May 11, 2021. The general

counsel informed Stacy that the OBN regarded his two-entity business structure

as illegal. In a follow-up letter, the general counsel stated that the operating

companies needed OBN registrations to legally grow marijuana. The general

counsel then explained that none of these companies qualified for OBN

registrations if they were ineligible for OMMA licenses. On May 21, 2021,

Stacy met with the general counsel again and presented alternate business

structures for OBN’s consideration. But the general counsel rejected each

proposal. The general counsel reiterated that the two-entity business structure

failed to meet the requirements for OBN registration. After additional

communications and at least one other meeting in June 2021, the OBN began

12 Appellate Case: 25-6029 Document: 57-1 Date Filed: 09/26/2025 Page: 13

denying registrations for Stacy’s clients because of the two-entity structure and

falsified information in the application.

III. Procedural Background

In October 2022, Oklahoma filed criminal charges against Stacy. The

amended information and second amended information contain a combined

thirty-four felony charges, including for manufacturing a controlled dangerous

substance, offering a false or forged instrument for record, and conspiracy to

defraud the state. Many of these charges focus on Stacy’s two-entity business

structure, his failure to disclose all ownership interests, and his attempts to

circumvent the OMMA-license and OBN-registration requirements. Stacy later

demurred to the evidence, arguing that the two-entity business structure

complied with Oklahoma law and that the evidence was insufficient to find

guilt. The Oklahoma trial court disagreed with Stacy and denied the demurrer.

The state charges remain pending against him, with a jury trial set for January

2026.

Then in April 2024, a federal grand jury returned an indictment against

Stacy. 7 The indictment charged him with a drug conspiracy, in violation of 21

U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(b)(1)(A) and 18 U.S.C. § 2; and maintaining drug-involved

premises, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 856(a)(2), (b). His federal charges arise

from the same core facts as his state charges—namely, his two-entity business

The same indictment also charged two of Stacy’s co-conspirators— 7

Chong Iu Phu and Chanh Iu Phu. 13 Appellate Case: 25-6029 Document: 57-1 Date Filed: 09/26/2025 Page: 14

structure, his failure to disclose all ownership interests, and his attempts to

evade Oklahoma’s licensing and registration requirements.

Stacy moved for the district court to enjoin his federal prosecution. He

argued that the rider barred the DOJ from spending funds to prosecute him. The

government opposed this motion. It countered that the district court lacked

jurisdiction to enjoin the prosecution, that the rider prohibits suits against only

state actors, and that Stacy had failed to comply with state law (as required to

activate the rider’s spending ban). After holding an evidentiary hearing, the

district court denied the motion. As a threshold matter, the district court

determined that the rider conferred jurisdiction over Stacy’s request to enjoin

the prosecution. But on the merits of the motion, the district court concluded

that Stacy had failed to prove “by a preponderance of the evidence that he

complied with Oklahoma state law.” 8 App. vol. II, at 9; see id. at 11, 15.

First, for the drug-conspiracy charge, the district court determined that

Stacy had failed to substantially comply with Oklahoma law. Specifically, the

district court found that Stacy never disclosed the two-entity business structure

to OMMA, that the operating companies fell short of the 75% residency

requirement, and that his clients began growing marijuana without OBN

registrations.

8 The district court assumed that the rider applied to individual prosecutions because the motion failed from Stacy’s lack of state-law compliance anyway.

14 Appellate Case: 25-6029 Document: 57-1 Date Filed: 09/26/2025 Page: 15

Second, for the charge of maintaining drug-involved premises, the

district court also determined that Stacy had not complied with Oklahoma law.

The court reasoned that Stacy had failed to “cast doubt” on the allegation that

he intentionally rented his property for an unlicensed marijuana grow. Id. at 15.

The district court therefore declined to enjoin the prosecution. 9

Stacy timely filed an interlocutory appeal. The district court stayed the

prosecution pending this appeal.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

We review the district court’s denial of an injunction for an abuse of

discretion. See United States v. McVeigh, 157 F.3d 809, 814 (10th Cir. 1998);

EagleMed LLC v. Cox, 868 F.3d 893, 899 (10th Cir. 2017). Under this standard,

we must “examine the court’s factual findings for clear error and its legal

conclusions de novo.” Free the Nipple-Fort Collins v. City of Fort Collins, 916

F.3d 792, 796–97 (10th Cir. 2019); see United States v. Sirois, 119 F.4th 143,

151–52 (1st Cir. 2024) (reviewing the denial of a motion to enjoin a federal

prosecution under the same standard).

9 The government also challenged Stacy’s standing to seek an injunction against his federal prosecution. The district court concluded that Stacy had standing, and no party argues otherwise on appeal. We have an independent duty to ensure that litigants have Article III standing on appeal, and here, we conclude that Stacy satisfies the requirements for standing. See United States v. Hays, 515 U.S. 737, 742 (1995); United States v. McIntosh, 833 F.3d 1163, 1173–74 (9th Cir. 2016). 15 Appellate Case: 25-6029 Document: 57-1 Date Filed: 09/26/2025 Page: 16

We also review de novo any jurisdictional challenges and questions of

statutory interpretation. United States v. Gulley, 130 F.4th 1178, 1183 (10th

Cir. 2025); Smith v. Bd. of Governors of the Fed. Rsrv. Sys., 73 F.4th 815, 820

(10th Cir. 2023).

DISCUSSION

On appeal, Stacy argues that the district court abused its discretion by

denying his motion to enjoin the prosecution. His arguments fall into two

camps—(1) jurisdictional challenges, and (2) the merits of the requested

injunction. For the jurisdictional challenges, the parties dispute both our

jurisdiction over this appeal and the district court’s jurisdiction over the initial

motion. And on the merits, Stacy argues that the rider protects against the

funding of individual prosecutions and that he falls within that protection as

someone who complied with Oklahoma’s medical-marijuana laws. We start

with the jurisdictional challenges and then consider the merits of this appeal.

I. Jurisdictional Challenges

The government raises two jurisdictional challenges to this appeal. First,

the government asserts that we lack jurisdiction to review the district court’s

order denying the motion to enjoin the prosecution. Second, regardless of our

jurisdiction, the government argues that the district court lacked jurisdiction to

hear Stacy’s initial motion. We address each jurisdictional issue in turn.

16 Appellate Case: 25-6029 Document: 57-1 Date Filed: 09/26/2025 Page: 17

A. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).

To start, the government challenges our jurisdiction to hear this appeal.

Stacy, in turn, contends that we have jurisdiction under § 1292(a)(1). We agree

with Stacy and therefore exercise jurisdiction over this appeal. 10

Under § 1292(a)(1), we have jurisdiction over appeals from

“[i]nterlocutory orders of the district courts . . . granting, continuing,

modifying, refusing or dissolving injunctions[.]” § 1292(a)(1). “If the order in

question is clearly injunctive in nature, the statute provides a vehicle for

immediate appeal without further inquiry.” McVeigh, 157 F.3d at 813; see also

Tri-State Generation & Transmission Ass’n v. Shoshone River Power, Inc., 874

F.2d 1346, 1351 (10th Cir. 1989) (“[A]n interlocutory order expressly granting

or denying injunctive relief fits squarely within the plain language of section

1292(a)(1).”). Here, Stacy moved to enjoin his federal prosecution, and the

district court denied that injunction. The district court’s order is “injunctive in

nature,” McVeigh, 157 F.3d at 813, so this appeal falls within § 1292(a)(1) as

an appeal of an interlocutory order refusing an injunction.

The government argues otherwise, asserting that § 1292(a)(1) does not

apply to criminal cases. As support, the government cites Miller v. United

States, in which the Second Circuit expressed “doubt” about “whether

10 The parties also dispute whether we may exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 through the collateral-order doctrine. Because we conclude that we have jurisdiction under § 1292(a)(1), we do not consider this issue. 17 Appellate Case: 25-6029 Document: 57-1 Date Filed: 09/26/2025 Page: 18

§ 1292(a)(1) applies to criminal cases at all.” 403 F.2d 77, 78 (2d Cir. 1968).

Drawing from this statement, the government claims that, despite the merger of

law and equity, the “historic wall” between courts of equity and criminal courts

still bars our jurisdiction under § 1292(a)(1). 11 Resp. Br. at 20. But the

government’s argument is foreclosed by our case law. In McVeigh, a criminal

defendant appealed a district court’s order, which had rescinded certain

restrictions on federal-state cooperation in a criminal investigation. 157 F.3d at

811. Because we determined that the district court’s order “had the effect of

modifying or dissolving a previously imposed injunction,” we concluded that

we had jurisdiction under § 1292(a)(1) for a criminal interlocutory appeal. Id.

11 The government cites Schoenamsgruber v. Hamburg American Line, 294 U.S. 454 (1935), and Di Bella v. United States, 369 U.S. 121 (1962), for the proposition that Congress had authorized interlocutory appeals for only suits in equity, not criminal cases. But the merger of law and equity through the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure has severely eroded the applicability of Schoenamsgruber. See Farrell Lines Inc. v. Ceres Terminals Inc., 161 F.3d 115, 116 (2d Cir. 1998) (noting that Schoenamsgruber’s limitation on injunctions in admiralty was undermined by “[t]he unification of admiralty and other civil actions,” which “impelled several circuits to abandon the prior limitation and recognize the authority of district courts, sitting in admiralty, to issue injunctions”). And though Di Bella described statutory exceptions to the final-judgment rule (including § 1292(a)(1)) as “addressed either in terms or by necessary operation solely to civil actions,” that case contained no analysis beyond this bare reference. 369 U.S. at 125–26. Without more persuasive authority, we decline to favor a line of dicta over the plain language of § 1292(a)(1), which contains no provision limiting injunctions to civil cases. Contra § 1292(b) (expressly limiting subsection (b) to “civil action[s]”). These outdated references to the courts’ equitable powers do not persuade us that we lack jurisdiction to hear this appeal.

18 Appellate Case: 25-6029 Document: 57-1 Date Filed: 09/26/2025 Page: 19

at 813. Given our precedent, we decline to recognize any blanket prohibition on

applying § 1292(a)(1) to criminal cases. 12

But we acknowledge that the government correctly taps into the courts’

reluctance to expand the use of interlocutory appeals in criminal cases. Courts

have generally applied finality requirements more strictly in criminal cases than

in civil cases. 15B Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and

Procedure § 3918 (2d ed. 2025). This emphasis on finality derives from the

Supreme Court’s view that the “encouragement of delay is fatal to the

vindication of the criminal law.” Cobbledick v. United States, 309 U.S. 323,

325 (1940). These background principles in the finality context “support [the]

12 The government acknowledges McVeigh but tries to limit its reach. According to the government, “when modifications have been sought after judgment in criminal cases,” our case law “has held that such orders [granting or denying the modification] have sufficient finality to permit appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.” Resp. Br. at 21 n.5. As support, the government cites two cases that deal with requests to modify an imposed sentence. Id. (citing United States v. Washington, 759 F.3d 1175, 1180–81 (10th Cir. 2014); United States v. Begay, 631 F.3d 1168, 1169 (10th Cir. 2011)). The defendant in Washington appealed the district court’s denial of his request to modify his term of imprisonment, 759 F.3d at 1178–79 (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)), while the defendant in Begay appealed the district court’s modification of his supervised- release conditions, 631 F.3d at 1169 (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(2)). But neither Washington nor Begay involved an injunction. Instead, the requested modifications in those cases would have altered the final criminal judgment. See Dolan v. United States, 560 U.S. 605, 617–18 (2010) (citing §§ 3582(b), 3583(a)) (stating that a term of imprisonment and supervised release are part of the final judgment). The district courts’ orders in Washington and Begay therefore had sufficient finality to fall under § 1291. By contrast, an order denying an injunction does not necessarily deal with any sort of final judgment. For these reasons, the government’s attempt to distinguish this case from McVeigh fails. 19 Appellate Case: 25-6029 Document: 57-1 Date Filed: 09/26/2025 Page: 20

narrow application of § 1292(a)(1)” in criminal cases. Federal Practice and

Procedure § 3918. In line with this mandate, other circuit courts have hesitated

to apply § 1292(a)(1) to criminal interlocutory appeals. See Miller, 403 F.2d at

78 (2d Cir. 1968) (expressing doubt about the application of § 1292(a)(1) to

criminal cases); In re Search Warrants Issued Feb. 18, 2022, 111 F.4th 316,

318–19, 323–24 (4th Cir. 2024) (concluding that the court of appeals lacked

jurisdiction under § 1292(a)(1) to review the district court’s interlocutory order

denying a search-warrant target’s request to enjoin the government from

searching records seized in a criminal investigation).

Yet even against this cautious application of § 1292(a)(1), the First and

Ninth Circuits have exercised jurisdiction over interlocutory appeals under

circumstances like this case. See, e.g., United States v. McIntosh, 833 F.3d

1163, 1170–72 (9th Cir. 2016); United States v. Bilodeau, 24 F.4th 705, 711–12

(1st Cir. 2022). In both McIntosh and Bilodeau, the defendants argued that the

rider prohibited the government from funding their federal prosecutions,

because the prosecutions prevented the states from implementing laws on

medical marijuana. 833 F.3d at 1168; 24 F.4th at 708, 711. They asserted that

the district courts erred by failing to enjoin their prosecutions. McIntosh, 833

F.3d at 1168, 1170; Bilodeau, 24 F.4th at 711. The First and Ninth Circuits

noted that federal appellate jurisdiction typically requires a final decision,

which exists only “after conviction and imposition of a sentence.” Bilodeau, 24

F.4th at 712 (citation modified); see McIntosh, 833 F.3d at 1170. But both

20 Appellate Case: 25-6029 Document: 57-1 Date Filed: 09/26/2025 Page: 21

circuits recognized that, because of the rider, these appeals fell “outside the

ordinary rule” that would otherwise limit their jurisdiction. Bilodeau, 24 F.4th

at 712; see McIntosh, 833 F.3d at 1172–73. The Ninth Circuit determined that,

“[e]ven if [the defendants] cannot obtain injunctions of their prosecutions

themselves, they can seek—and have sought—to enjoin DOJ from spending

funds from the relevant appropriations acts on such prosecutions” under the

rider. McIntosh, 833 F.3d at 1172. The First Circuit similarly reasoned that “the

alleged wrong is not the prosecution per se, but rather the use of federal funds

in a manner that prevents the implementation of [the state]’s medical marijuana

laws.” Bilodeau, 24 F.4th at 712. So both circuits concluded that they had

jurisdiction under § 1292(a)(1) to review the district courts’ interlocutory

orders denying injunctive relief. Id. at 711–12; McIntosh, 833 F.3d at 1172.

We face the same situation here. Like the defendants in McIntosh and

Bilodeau, Stacy alleges that the rider bars the government from funding his

prosecution and seeks to enjoin that spending. He also claims that he “fully

complied with Oklahoma’s medical marijuana laws” and that “this prosecution

violates the [rider] and the Appropriations Clause.” Op. Br. at 2. Importantly,

defendants seeking to enjoin their federal prosecutions under the rider face a

distinct need for immediate appeal. Any decision to delay an appeal until after

the final judgment would result in additional funds for the prosecution through

a potential conviction and sentencing. Without an interlocutory appeal, a

defendant would have no recourse for the government’s continued-spending

21 Appellate Case: 25-6029 Document: 57-1 Date Filed: 09/26/2025 Page: 22

violation should the district court err in denying an injunction—“the funds will

be spent and cannot be unspent.” Bilodeau, 24 F.4th at 712. Because we find

the First and Ninth Circuits’ reasoning on this issue persuasive, we likewise

conclude that we may exercise jurisdiction under § 1292(a)(1).

Finally, the government argues that, even if we could exercise

jurisdiction under § 1292(a)(1) in some criminal appeals, we should not do so

here. According to the government, a court order that “relates only to the

conduct or progress of litigation before that court ordinarily is not considered

an injunction and therefore is not appealable under § 1292(a)(1).” Resp. Br. at

22 (quoting Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp., 485 U.S. 271,

279 (1988)). The government claims that Stacy’s requested injunction falls

within Gulfstream Aerospace’s dictate against interlocutory appeals. We

disagree.

Gulfstream Aerospace dealt with an order denying a motion to stay the

case, not an injunction. 485 U.S. at 272. In that context, the Supreme Court

held “that orders granting or denying stays of ‘legal’ proceedings on ‘equitable’

grounds are not automatically appealable under § 1292(a)(1).” Id. at 287. But

the Court elaborated that its ruling would “not prevent interlocutory review of

district court orders when such review is truly needed.” Id. The Court

emphasized that “[§ ] 1292(a)(1) [would] . . . continue to provide appellate

jurisdiction over orders that grant or deny injunctions[.]” Id. Unlike the party in

Gulfstream Aerospace, Stacy seeks review of an order denying an injunction, 22 Appellate Case: 25-6029 Document: 57-1 Date Filed: 09/26/2025 Page: 23

not a stay. See id. at 273; Bilodeau, 24 F.4th at 711 n.6 (stating that motions to

“prevent[] the DOJ from spending federal funds to continue [the defendants’]

prosecution” should be construed as “requests for injunctions”). His requested

injunction fits squarely within the scope of appealability allowed under

Gulfstream Aerospace. 485 U.S. at 287–88.

We also reject the government’s contention that the district court’s order

relates to only the conduct or progress of the litigation before the district court.

Rather, the order deals with whether the rider bars the DOJ from spending

funds on Stacy’s prosecution. That issue is separate from the pace or merits of

the criminal proceedings against Stacy. See Bilodeau, 24 F.4th at 712;

McIntosh, 833 F.3d at 1172. Gulfstream Aerospace lends no support to the

government’s position.

For these reasons, we conclude that we have jurisdiction under

§ 1292(a)(1) to resolve this appeal.

B. The district court had ancillary jurisdiction over the motion to enjoin the prosecution.

Next, the government challenges the district court’s jurisdiction over

Stacy’s initial motion to enjoin the prosecution. The government contends that

Stacy failed to meet his jurisdictional burden in the district court. 13

13 Relatedly, the government argues that injunctive relief requires the filing of a separate civil complaint, even if the injunction pertains to a criminal prosecution. The government relies on an unpublished case, which included a footnote stating that, “[a]bsent a properly-filed complaint, a court lacks power (footnote continued) 23 Appellate Case: 25-6029 Document: 57-1 Date Filed: 09/26/2025 Page: 24

In particular, the government claims that Stacy faces a “virtually

impossible” burden, because “‘centuries of weighty experience in Anglo-

American law’ [establish] that ‘equity will not enjoin a criminal prosecution.’”

Resp. Br. at 48 (quoting Stefanelli v. Minard, 342 U.S. 117, 120 (1951)). This

statement mischaracterizes the law. Though the Supreme Court disfavors

injunctions in criminal prosecutions, federal courts have established that certain

“rare” exceptions justify extending their equitable jurisdiction to criminal

to issue preliminary injunctive relief.” Powell v. Rios, 241 F. App’x 500, 505 n.4 (10th Cir. 2007). We disagree with this argument. In Powell, a pro se prisoner tried to move for a temporary restraining order due to alleged civil rights violations in the prison but had no underlying civil action. Id. at 502. The magistrate judge therefore directed the plaintiff to file a complaint with his motion. Id. But the injunctive relief in Powell concerned a civil proceeding, not a criminal proceeding. Id. There, no underlying case existed for the prisoner to request injunctive relief; a freestanding motion for relief cannot commence a civil action. Id. at 502, 505 n.4; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 3. By contrast, an underlying criminal case exists here, and the request to enjoin the criminal prosecution falls within that case. True, criminal defendants have filed requests to enjoin their federal prosecutions as separate civil actions, rather than as motions in the original criminal cases. See, e.g., Deaver v. Seymour, 822 F.2d 66, 66–67 (D.C. Cir. 1987). But United States v. Schnitzer highlights how a civil-action requirement would amount to a mere administrative exercise. 567 F.2d 536 (2d Cir. 1977). In Schnitzer, a defendant moved to expunge his arrest record. Id. at 538. He filed his motion in his original criminal case instead of commencing a new civil case. Id. After an unfavorable ruling from the district court, he argued on appeal that his failure to file a separate civil action stripped the district court of jurisdiction. Id. The Second Circuit disagreed, reasoning that even if the defendant had filed a separate civil action, the case “would have been assigned to the same judge as a matter related to the criminal action and would have been treated as ancillary to the criminal action.” Id. Likewise, had Stacy filed a separate civil action to enjoin the prosecution, that civil action would have been treated as a related matter and likely assigned to the same district judge overseeing the criminal case. For these reasons, the government’s argument is unpersuasive. 24 Appellate Case: 25-6029 Document: 57-1 Date Filed: 09/26/2025 Page: 25

cases. McIntosh, 833 F.3d at 1172; see, e.g., Truax v. Raich, 239 U.S. 33, 37–

38 (1915) (recognizing that “equitable jurisdiction exists to restrain criminal

prosecutions” in some cases). Moreover, Stefanelli is easily distinguishable, as it

involved attempts to interfere in separate state-court criminal proceedings by asking

federal courts to suppress evidence in those proceedings. See 342 U.S. at 120 (noting

that appeal concerned “perhaps the most sensitive source of friction between [s]tates

and [n]ation, namely, the active intrusion of the federal courts in the administration

of the criminal law for the prosecution of crimes solely within the power of the

[s]tates”). No such federalism concerns are at play here.

Instead, this issue turns on separation-of-powers concerns. Under the

Appropriations Clause, “[n]o Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in

Consequence of Appropriations made by Law[.]” U.S. Const. art. I, § 9, cl. 7.

“[I]n other words, the payment of money from the Treasury must be authorized

by a statute.” Off. of Pers. Mgmt. v. Richmond, 496 U.S. 414, 424 (1990). This

clause forms a cornerstone for the separation of powers, especially between the

executive and legislative branches. U.S. Dep’t of Navy v. Fed. Lab. Rels. Auth.,

665 F.3d 1339, 1347 (D.C. Cir. 2012). Otherwise, “the executive would possess

an unbounded power over the public purse of the nation; and might apply all its

moneyed resources at his pleasure.” McIntosh, 833 F.3d at 1175 (quoting 2

Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States § 1348

(3d ed. 1858)); see also Bilodeau, 24 F.4th at 712 (“[T]he defendants stand not

so much as criminal defendants seeking to vindicate a personal right but as

25 Appellate Case: 25-6029 Document: 57-1 Date Filed: 09/26/2025 Page: 26

parties with a particularly concrete interest in seeing a congressional spending

ban vindicated.”).

These separation-of-powers principles underlie any alleged violation of

the rider. The rider bars the DOJ from spending appropriated funds in a manner

that prevents a state from implementing its medical-marijuana laws.

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024 § 531. Here, Stacy argues that the DOJ

violated the rider by using funds to prosecute him despite his compliance with

Oklahoma’s medical-marijuana laws. Faced with that argument, the district

court could not “ignore the judgment of Congress, deliberately expressed in

legislation”—here, the appropriations rider. McIntosh, 833 F.3d at 1172 (quoting

United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Co-op., 532 U.S. 483, 497 (2001)). And

it did not need to ignore such legislative judgment because “district courts in criminal

cases have ancillary jurisdiction, which ‘is the power of a court to adjudicate and

determine matters incidental to the exercise of its primary jurisdiction over a cause

under review.’” Id. at 1172 n.2 (quoting United States v. Sumner, 226 F.3d 1005,

1013–15 (9th Cir. 2000)); cf. United States v. Wingfield, 822 F.2d 1466, 1470 (10th

Cir. 1987) (holding that district court had ancillary jurisdiction over dispute between

state and federal claims to property forfeited in criminal prosecution).

We therefore conclude that the district court properly exercised its

ancillary jurisdiction. To hold otherwise would render the rider effectively

26 Appellate Case: 25-6029 Document: 57-1 Date Filed: 09/26/2025 Page: 27

unenforceable. 14 See Young v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 575 U.S. 206, 226

(2015) (requiring us to construe statutes to avoid making any clause

“superfluous, void, or insignificant” (citation modified)).

II. Merits Issues

Now that we have resolved the jurisdictional issues, we turn to the merits

of Stacy’s appeal. On the merits, the parties advance two issues: (1) whether

the rider bars the DOJ from funding the prosecutions of private individuals

(rather than only state actors), and (2) whether the district court abused its

discretion by denying Stacy’s motion to enjoin the prosecution. We address

each issue below.

We reject the government’s suggestion that a defendant could enforce 14

the rider via a motion to dismiss the indictment. According to the government, a defendant may move to dismiss the prosecution under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(b)(3) because the defendant would face “unnecessary delay” for a trial if the government had no funds to prosecute the case. Resp. Br. at 51 (citation modified). We disagree. The government’s argument presumes that the DOJ can regulate its own funding without any judicial oversight. To reach the threshold for dismissal, the government would first have to independently decide to defund the prosecution. The court would then need to wait the requisite period of delay to warrant dismissal under Rule 48(b). See United States v. Barken, 412 F.3d 1131, 1136 (9th Cir. 2005) (stating that a dismissal under Rule 48(b) is warranted for a delay of nearly five years between the defendant’s arrest and trial “only in extreme circumstances” and after the district court “exercis[ed] caution and . . . forewarn[ed] the government of the consequences of further delay”). This proposed remedy imputes complete discretion to the DOJ to determine which prosecutions fall outside the rider’s scope and thus does not resolve the separation-of-powers concern at issue here. 27 Appellate Case: 25-6029 Document: 57-1 Date Filed: 09/26/2025 Page: 28

A. The rider bars the DOJ from spending appropriated funds to prosecute private individuals who comply with state medical- marijuana laws.

The parties dispute whether the rider applies to the prosecutions of

private individuals. Stacy contends that the rider bars the DOJ from funding the

prosecutions of private individuals who comply with state medical-marijuana

laws. He argues that these prosecutions deter conduct authorized under state

law and thus “prevent” the states “from implementing their” medical-marijuana

laws. Op. Br. at 38 (quoting McIntosh, 833 F.3d at 1176). The government

claims that the rider bars the prosecutions of only state officials who

“implement” a state’s medical-marijuana laws. Under this reading of the rider,

the government asserts that a private individual does not “implement” state law

and that prosecutions of private individuals therefore fall outside the rider’s

scope.

To resolve this issue, we start with the text of the rider. The “first step in

interpreting a statute is to determine whether the language at issue has a plain

and unambiguous meaning with regard to the particular dispute in the case.”

Peabody Twentymile Mining, LLC v. Sec’y of Lab., 931 F.3d 992, 996 (10th

Cir. 2019) (citation modified). “If the statute’s text is unambiguous, then its

plain meaning controls, and our inquiry ends.” United States v. Broadway, 1

F.4th 1206, 1211 (10th Cir. 2021). As a reminder, the rider states as follows:

None of the funds made available under [the Appropriations] Act to the Department of Justice may be used, with respect to any of the [medical-marijuana states and territories] to prevent any of them

28 Appellate Case: 25-6029 Document: 57-1 Date Filed: 09/26/2025 Page: 29

from implementing their own laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana.

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024 § 531. We construe these words in the

context of the rider. See Sturgeon v. Frost, 577 U.S. 424, 438 (2016)

(“Statutory language cannot be construed in a vacuum.” (citation modified)).

The parties focus on the phrase “to prevent any of them from

implementing their own laws.” We dissect the key words:

• “Prevent” means “to keep from happening or existing.” Prevent, Merriam-Webster.com, https://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/prevent (last visited Aug. 14, 2025).

• “Them” refers to all the states and territories that have legalized medical marijuana. See Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024 § 531.

• “Implement” means “carry out, accomplish,” as well as “to give practical effect to and ensure of actual fulfillment by concrete measures.” Implement, Merriam-Webster.com, https://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/implement (last visited Aug. 14, 2025).

• “Their own laws” refer to the states’ medical-marijuana laws. See Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024 § 531.

Reading the phrase together, the DOJ may not use funds “to keep” the states

from “carry[ing] out” or “giv[ing] practical effect” to their medical-marijuana

laws. See Rocky Mountain Wild v. Dallas, 98 F.4th 1263, 1291 (10th Cir. 2024)

(stating that the plain and ordinary meaning of the language in a statute can be

determined through dictionary definitions). Relevant here, the federal

Controlled Substances Act makes medical marijuana illegal, while the states

referred to in the rider permit medical marijuana in some capacity. If the DOJ

were to prosecute individuals under federal law for conduct that complies with

29 Appellate Case: 25-6029 Document: 57-1 Date Filed: 09/26/2025 Page: 30

state law, these prosecutions would deter the state-authorized use of medical

marijuana and cumulatively prevent the state from giving “practical effect” to

its laws. That conflicts with the rider’s prohibition against the DOJ’s use of

funds to prevent the states from implementing their own medical-marijuana

laws. So from the plain language, we conclude that the rider bars the

prosecutions of private individuals who comply with state medical-marijuana

laws.

Our conclusion comports with every other court’s reading of the rider.

See, e.g., McIntosh, 833 F.3d at 1176–77 (holding that the rider bars the DOJ

from funding the prosecutions of those engaged in conduct permitted under

state medical-marijuana laws); Bilodeau, 24 F.4th at 712–13 (same); United

States v. Jackson, 388 F. Supp. 3d 505, 507 (E.D. Pa. 2019) (same). And we

have characterized the rider in similar terms as well. See Green Sol. Retail, Inc.

v. United States, 855 F.3d 1111, 1114 (10th Cir. 2017) (describing the rider as

“defunding the Justice Department’s prosecution of the exchange of medical

marijuana where it is legal under state law”); Sandusky v. Goetz, 944 F.3d

1240, 1242–43 (10th Cir. 2019) (same). The government makes several

arguments against this reading of the rider. None are persuasive.

First, the government touts how the rider identifies the states and

territories that have legalized medical marijuana. Relying on this list, the

government argues that Congress had intended “to only protect state actors, not

private individuals[.]” Resp. Br. at 54. But the government imputes too much

30 Appellate Case: 25-6029 Document: 57-1 Date Filed: 09/26/2025 Page: 31

meaning to the list of states without acknowledging the rest of the rider.

Though the rider protects these states from DOJ spending that would “prevent”

the states from “implementing their own laws,” the rider never suggests that

only direct interference with a state actor falls within the spending ban. The

rider’s focus on these medical-marijuana states does not circumscribe the scope

of the rider’s protection.

Second, the government argues that the word “implement” shows that the

rider protects state actors, not private actors. As support, the government cites

Bowsher v. Synar, which says that “[i]nterpreting a law enacted by Congress to

implement the legislative mandate is the very essence of ‘execution’ of the

law.” 478 U.S. 714, 733 (1986). According to the government, because

Bowsher equates “executing” the law with “implementing” the law, the power

to “implement” the law rests with the executive and so the rider deals with only

state actors. But Bowsher never held that “execution” is the sole definition of

“implementation.” Bowsher stated that “execution of the law” includes

“[i]nterpreting a law enacted by Congress to implement the legislative

mandate[.]” Id. (citation modified). That definition does not foreclose the

existence of other definitions for “implement,” nor does Bowsher suggest that

the meaning of “implement” is strictly identical to that of “execute.” We fail to

see how Bowsher constricts the plain language of the rider in the manner

advocated for by the government.

31 Appellate Case: 25-6029 Document: 57-1 Date Filed: 09/26/2025 Page: 32

Third, the government argues that Oklahoma law reinforces its

interpretation of the rider. The government points to the Oklahoma constitution,

which tasks “the Executive Branch of Government with the responsibility to

implement all measures enacted by the Legislature.” Okla. Stat. tit. 75,

§ 250.2(A) (emphasis added); see generally Okla. Const. art. VI. According to

the government, Oklahoma law specifically authorizes the Oklahoma State

Department of Health to “implement” the state’s medical-marijuana laws. Okla.

Stat. tit. 63, § 427.3(C) (2019). The government claims that these examples

demonstrate that only state actors “implement” the law. But again, the

government assumes that, to “prevent” a state from implementing its medical-

marijuana laws, the DOJ must directly interfere with a state actor. This

interpretation overlooks the broader scope of actions from the DOJ that may

still prevent a state from implementing its laws. For example, here, the DOJ’s

prosecution of individuals who comply with state law would undermine any

state-level legalization of medical marijuana. These types of prosecutions

prevent that state from “implementing,” or “giving practical effect to,” its own

laws. The government’s position creates a protection too narrow for the rider’s

plain language.

Fourth, the government criticizes McIntosh’s analysis of the rider’s plain

language. The government claims that the Ninth Circuit merely reached its

desired outcome by substituting “implementing” with “giving practical effect

to.” See McIntosh, 833 F.3d at 1176. But the Ninth Circuit’s analysis used

32 Appellate Case: 25-6029 Document: 57-1 Date Filed: 09/26/2025 Page: 33

traditional tools of statutory interpretation. See Rocky Mountain Wild, 98 F.4th

at 1291 (“Dictionary definitions are useful touchstones to determine the

‘ordinary meaning’ of an undefined statutory term.” (citation modified)). And

the government adopts the same mode of analysis that it criticizes—substituting

“implementing” with “executing” to support its interpretation of the rider as

cabined to the prosecutions of state actors. This argument fails to convince us

that we should diverge from the Ninth Circuit’s reading of the rider.

For these reasons, we conclude that the rider bars the DOJ from spending

appropriated funds to prosecute private individuals who comply with state

medical-marijuana laws.

B. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Stacy’s motion to enjoin the prosecution.

Finally, Stacy insists that he complied with Oklahoma’s medical-

marijuana laws, such that the government’s funding of the prosecution against

him violates the rider. He claims that his compliance required the district court

to enjoin the prosecution of both the drug-conspiracy count and the count for

maintaining drug-involved premises. The district court disagreed. On both

counts, the district court concluded that Stacy’s underlying conduct fell short of

substantial compliance with Oklahoma law. The district court therefore

declined to enjoin the prosecution.

To fall within the rider’s protection, the moving party must prove by a

preponderance of the evidence that he complied with the state’s medical-

33 Appellate Case: 25-6029 Document: 57-1 Date Filed: 09/26/2025 Page: 34

marijuana laws. See United States v. Evans, 929 F.3d 1073, 1077 (9th Cir.

2019); Sirois, 119 F.4th at 152–53. As a threshold matter, the parties dispute

the level of state-law compliance that Stacy must demonstrate under the rider.

Stacy asserts that he needs to show just a reasonable belief that his actions

complied with state law. No court has ever adopted this standard of compliance,

and we likewise reject such a lenient standard. Alternatively, Stacy argues that

the rider protects individuals who substantially comply with state law. See

Sirois, 119 F.4th at 148, 153 (holding that the party moving to enjoin the

prosecution under the rider must show at least substantial compliance with state

law). 15 The government counters that we should instead follow the Ninth

Circuit’s strict-compliance standard. McIntosh, 833 F.3d at 1178 (holding that

the rider protects only those who strictly comply with state law). We need not

15 The First Circuit has yet to explicitly adopt a standard of compliance. In Bilodeau, the First Circuit rejected the Ninth Circuit’s strict-compliance standard but declined to define the “precise boundaries” for compliance. 24 F.4th at 715; see id. at 713. Then in Sirois, the First Circuit accepted the parties’ agreed-on “substantial compliance standard” and concluded that the defendants failed to meet that standard. 119 F.4th at 152–53, 158–59. So at minimum, the First Circuit requires substantial compliance with state medical- marijuana laws to fall within the rider’s protection. Id. Stacy attempts to shoehorn his proposed reasonable-belief standard into the First Circuit’s case law. But he merely warps the First Circuit’s use of the word “reasonable” in a different context. In Bilodeau, the First Circuit commented that “the potential for technical noncompliance is real enough that no person through any reasonable effort could always assure strict compliance.” 24 F.4th at 713 (emphasis added); see Sirois, 119 F.4th at 148 (same). That provides no support for adopting Stacy’s reasonable-belief standard. At most, the quoted statement bolsters Stacy’s position that we should reject a strict-compliance standard. 34 Appellate Case: 25-6029 Document: 57-1 Date Filed: 09/26/2025 Page: 35

resolve the dispute here, because we conclude that Stacy failed to even

substantially comply with Oklahoma’s medical-marijuana laws. We review the

conduct underlying each charge.

1. Count One: Drug Conspiracy

For the drug-conspiracy count, Stacy allegedly conspired with others to

manufacture, distribute, and possess with the intent to distribute marijuana.

According to the indictment, Stacy helped non-residents evade Oklahoma’s

medical-marijuana laws. He crafted a two-entity business structure to obtain

OMMA licenses and OBN registrations for these non-residents. He then added

Oklahoma residents as “owners” to hide the non-residents’ true ownership

interests through the two-entity business structure. Though listed on the

applications, these resident-owners had no relation to the marijuana-grow

operations. Stacy also instructed clients that they could grow marijuana without

the required OBN registration. Based on the evidence submitted at the hearing,

the district court concluded that Stacy failed to substantially comply with

Oklahoma law. Specifically, the district court determined that Stacy had

violated sections 422(B), 427.14, 2-302, and 2-401. The first two sections list

the requirements for an OMMA license, and the last two sections list the

requirements for an OBN registration. §§ 422(B), 427.14, 2-302, 2-401.

On appeal, Stacy disputes the district court’s ruling. First, Stacy asserts

that his two-entity business structure complied with Oklahoma law. He claims

that no Oklahoma statute required him to disclose the two-entity structure or to

35 Appellate Case: 25-6029 Document: 57-1 Date Filed: 09/26/2025 Page: 36

disclose individuals “‘involved’ in or ‘responsible’ for the grow operation[.]”

Op. Br. at 48. This argument misstates the law. To obtain an OMMA license, an

applicant must “disclose all ownership interests[.]” § 427.14(E)(7)(e).

Oklahoma law defines “owner” as a “direct beneficial owner,” including “any

other person holding an interest or convertible note in any entity which owns,

operates or manages a licensed facility[.]” § 427.2(46). Stacy’s operating

companies fit this definition. In each of the two-entity business structures, the

operating company “operate[d]” and “manage[d]” the licensed marijuana

facility. Id. Stacy’s failure to disclose the operating companies and their

owners amounts to a failure to substantially comply with Oklahoma law.

Stacy resists this conclusion by arguing that he had “fully disclosed” the

identities of the operating companies’ owners, because the OMMA and OBN

applications listed his out-of-state clients as 25% owners of the licensing

companies. Op. Br. at 7. But even if we were to assume that the state agencies

knew the identities of his out-of-state clients, Stacy’s two-entity business

structure still concealed their true ownership interests and involvement in the

marijuana grows. So his failure to report the ownership interests of the

operating companies violated section 427.14(E)(7)(e). See also § 427.14(E)(4),

(K) (requiring that “[a]ll applications shall be complete and accurate in every

detail” and that “[a]ll shall submit information . . . in a full, faithful, truthful

and fair manner”). This violation alone demonstrates that Stacy failed to

36 Appellate Case: 25-6029 Document: 57-1 Date Filed: 09/26/2025 Page: 37

substantially comply with Oklahoma’s medical-marijuana laws. 16 But for a

complete review, we consider his other arguments as well.

Second, Stacy argues that he “did not aid or abet” his clients’ growth of

marijuana prior to receiving their OBN registrations. Op. Br. at 51. This

argument fails as well. Section 2-302(A) requires any entity that manufactures

or distributes controlled substances (including medical marijuana) to “obtain a

registration issued by the” OBN. But none of the operating companies in the

two-entity structure even applied for an OBN registration. Nor could they

obtain those registrations if they were to apply. The operating companies need

OMMA licenses to obtain OBN registrations but do not meet the 75% residency

requirement for the OMMA licenses. § 2-302(L) (“No person engaged in a

profession or occupation for which a license to engage in such activity is

provided by law shall be registered under [this act] unless such person holds a

16 Stacy argues that Oklahoma later amended the law to require reporting “all ownership interests in the commercial grower operation.” Op. Br. at 48 (emphasis omitted) (quoting Okla. Stat. tit. 63, § 422(B) (Nov. 1, 2021)). He claims that this amendment reflects how the prior version of the law never required disclosure of the operating company. This argument is unpersuasive, because section 427.14(E)(7)(e) had required disclosing the operating company and its owners before the cited amendment. See Adhikari v. Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 845 F.3d 184, 201 (5th Cir. 2017) (“[C]hanges in statutory language do not always constitute a change in meaning or effect of that statute. Rather, Congress may amend a law merely to make what was intended all along even more unmistakably clear.” (citation modified)); United States v. Lewis, 67 F.3d 225, 230 n.8 (9th Cir. 1995) (“An amendment to a statute does not necessarily indicate that the unamended statute meant the opposite.” (citation modified)). Oklahoma’s decision to clarify the illegality of certain business schemes does not render those schemes legal under the prior version of that law. 37 Appellate Case: 25-6029 Document: 57-1 Date Filed: 09/26/2025 Page: 38

valid license of such person’s profession or occupation.”); § 427.14(E)(7)(c).

Stacy’s failure to register the operating companies violated Oklahoma law. § 2-

302(A).

To avoid this outcome, Stacy asserts that the operating companies did not

need to register with the OBN because they served as the licensing companies’

agents. We disagree. Section 2-302(H)(1) carves out an exception to OBN

registration for “[a]n agent . . . of any registered manufacturer, distributor,

dispenser or user . . . if such agent is acting in the usual course of such agent’s

. . . business or employment[.]” And Oklahoma law defines “agent” as “an

authorized person who acts on behalf of or at the direction of a person who

manufactures . . . controlled dangerous substances[.]” Okla. Stat. tit. 63, § 2-

101(2) (2019); see § 2-101(30) (defining “person” to include “any other legal

entity”). Though Stacy claims that the operating companies fall within this

exception, the evidence belies his assertion. The management agreement

between the operating company and the licensing company states that the

operating company is “an independent contractor” and that no provision “shall

be construed to or shall create a relationship of agency . . . between the”

operating company and licensing company. Supp. App. at 33. The agreement

adds that the licensing company “shall not control or direct the manner or

methods by which [the operating company] performs the [services] set forth in

this [a]greement[.]” Id. The plain language of the agreement therefore counsels

against an agency relationship.

38 Appellate Case: 25-6029 Document: 57-1 Date Filed: 09/26/2025 Page: 39

Further, section 2-101(2) specifies that an agent “does not include . . . a

person required to register under the Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances

Act[.]” The agent must also be “acting in the usual course of such agent’s . . .

business or employment” to qualify for the agency exception. § 2-302(H)(1).

Here, the operating company’s usual course of business is growing, cultivating,

and distributing marijuana—activities that require OBN registration. The

operating company therefore cannot qualify as an agent of the licensing

company under sections 2-101(2) and 2-302(H)(1). And the evidence further

reflects that, in practice, the Oklahoma residents—who compose at least 75%

ownership of the licensing company—knew almost nothing about the marijuana

operations. Supp. App. at 145, 156–57, 221–22. Under these circumstances,

none of the operating companies served as agents of the licensing companies.

Section 2-302(H)(1) offers no escape from OBN registration for the operating

company.

Third, Stacy argues that he never aided any client’s growth of marijuana

before the licensing company obtained its OBN registration. He claims that an

attorney “does not become liable for each and every misdeed a client may

thereafter commit.” Op. Br. at 52–53. But on at least one occasion, Stacy

continued to advise his clients that they could grow marijuana without an OBN

registration—after OBN’s general counsel told him that this practice violated

Oklahoma law. Supp. App. at 187–89. So even if we were to view these out-of-

state clients through their roles as 25% owners of the licensing companies, the

39 Appellate Case: 25-6029 Document: 57-1 Date Filed: 09/26/2025 Page: 40

record still demonstrates that Stacy aided his clients’ marijuana growth before

they obtained their OBN registrations.

Fourth, Stacy argues that his clients could legally grow marijuana

without an OBN registration. He asserts that section 427.14 “required only that

an applicant ‘submit’ (not obtain) a registration in order to be entitled to grow

marijuana.” Op. Br. at 54. He contrasts section 427.14 with section 2-302,

which requires any individual who manufactures “controlled dangerous

substances” to “obtain a registration” from the OBN. § 2-302(A) (emphasis

added). Stacy claims that these two statutes conflict with each other and that

the later-enacted statute—section 427.14—should control whether an individual

needed to “obtain” or merely “submit” an OBN registration before growing

marijuana. We disagree with this reading of the statutes. As discussed, section

427.14 lays out the requirements for an OMMA license, while section 2-302

lists the requirements for an OBN registration. Section 427.14’s requirement

that a license applicant also “submit” an application for OBN registration does

not nullify section 2-302(A)’s requirement that an individual “obtain” an OBN

registration before growing marijuana. See § 2-302(A) (requiring “[e]very

person who manufactures . . . any controlled dangerous substance” to “obtain a

registration issued by the [OBN]”); § 2-204. We see no conflict between these

statutes that would require us to disregard section 2-302.

Finally, Stacy claims that Oklahoma’s lax enforcement of these statutes

created the false impression that growing marijuana before obtaining an OBN

40 Appellate Case: 25-6029 Document: 57-1 Date Filed: 09/26/2025 Page: 41

registration complied with state law. But neither ignorance of the law nor lax

enforcement justifies Stacy’s failure to substantially comply with Oklahoma

law. See United States v. Benton, 988 F.3d 1231, 1239 (10th Cir. 2021)

(“[I]gnorance of the law is no defense.”); Sirois, 119 F.4th at 156–57

(concluding that the state’s lack of enforcement cannot overcome the

defendant’s failure to substantially comply with state medical-marijuana laws).

Oklahoma’s enforcement decisions—for reasons that may range from strategic

planning to scarce resources—do not excuse noncompliance with the law. 17

For these reasons, none of Stacy’s arguments are persuasive. Stacy’s

conduct underlying the drug-conspiracy count demonstrates that he failed to

substantially comply with Oklahoma’s medical-marijuana laws. We therefore

conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to

enjoin the prosecution of this count.

2. Count Two: Maintaining Drug-Involved Premises

Besides the drug-conspiracy count, Stacy was also charged with

maintaining drug-involved premises. For this count, the indictment alleges that

Stacy knowingly and intentionally rented his property in Blanchard for an

unlawful marijuana-grow operation. Stacy argues otherwise and submitted an

audio recording in which he supposedly informed his tenants that they could

17 For example, an OBN agent’s stray comment about “growth before registration” as “an admin thing” cannot overcome Stacy’s failure to substantially comply with the law. App. vol. III, at 17 (citation modified). 41 Appellate Case: 25-6029 Document: 57-1 Date Filed: 09/26/2025 Page: 42

not grow marijuana without an OMMA license and OBN registration. The

district court determined that Stacy had failed to meet his burden of proving his

substantial compliance with state law.

On appeal, Stacy argues that the district court did not identify any

alleged violation of Oklahoma law. He claims that no evidence established his

knowledge of the tenants’ marijuana-grow operations. The record contradicts

this argument. In the grand-jury proceedings, Stacy’s former tenant testified

that Stacy knew about the unlicensed marijuana grow at the rental property.

See Sealed Supp. App. at 4. Therefore, the district court could reasonably

conclude that Stacy had knowledge of the illegal activity on his Blanchard

property.

Stacy also argues that he functioned merely as an attorney and landlord.

He points to his lack of ownership and lack of involvement in the operation.

But his decision to rent property for the purpose of supporting an unlicensed

marijuana grow violates Oklahoma law. Okla. Stat. tit. 63, § 2-404(A)(6)

(2021) (prohibiting any person from keeping or maintaining any dwelling house

or building that is used by others to keep or sell controlled dangerous

substances in violation of the Uniform Controlled Substances Act); see § 2-

401(A); Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 172 (2021). The record establishes that Stacy was

intimately involved with the unlicensed marijuana grow at his Blanchard

property. See App. vol. VI, at 1 (lease agreement between Stacy Property Group

L.L.C. and X Fortune Inc.); Sealed Supp. App. at 3–4 (testimony that the

42 Appellate Case: 25-6029 Document: 57-1 Date Filed: 09/26/2025 Page: 43

tenants paid about $17,000 a month for a combination deal of rent and legal

advice, that Stacy knew about the unlawful marijuana growth at the Blanchard

property, that the tenants had paid Stacy to get a license, and that Stacy never

got them a license). To counter these claims, Stacy cites (1) a recording of his

conversation with his tenants at the Blanchard property; and (2) the lease

agreement, which “required the tenant to comply with ‘all applicable state and

local laws . . . including but not limited to Oklahoma medical marijuana law.’”

Op. Br. at 25 (quoting App. vol. VI, at 17). These arguments do not persuade

us.

Even if we were to consider the recording, the overall record still

supports a conclusion that Stacy failed to substantially comply with Oklahoma

law. 18 For example, in the recording, someone—let’s assume Stacy—incorrectly

claims that Oklahoma’s “rules” had “change[d]” and that the tenants must now

have an active “Oklahoma partner” for their license. See Def. Ex. 122 at 01:37–

02:05. At no point during the timeframe listed in the indictment did Oklahoma

law “change,” such that the tenants could previously grow marijuana without an

OMMA license, obtain an OMMA license without the 75% residency

requirement, or obtain an OBN registration without an OMMA license. We

18 The district court concluded that the recording was not self- authenticating under Federal Rule of Evidence 902. On appeal, Stacy argues that the district court incorrectly ruled on this evidentiary issue. We need not resolve this dispute because the recording does not change the outcome of Stacy’s appeal.

43 Appellate Case: 25-6029 Document: 57-1 Date Filed: 09/26/2025 Page: 44

agree with the district court that “the recording does nothing to cast doubt on

the allegation that Mr. Stacy rented his property with knowledge that the

tenants wanted to grow marijuana, that the tenants subsequently operated a

marijuana farm on the property, or that the tenants were selling marijuana

without the required licenses.” App. vol. II, at 15. As for the lease, we likewise

find that a generalized statement about complying with state law cannot

sufficiently counteract the evidence of Stacy’s unlawful involvement in this

marijuana grow.

For these reasons, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its

discretion in declining to enjoin the prosecution of this count. 19

CONCLUSION

We affirm. 20

19 We note that the district court’s factfinding does not affect the admissibility of evidence at any subsequent criminal trial. See Bilodeau, 24 F.4th at 716 n.9. This opinion also has no bearing on Stacy’s guilt. We answer only whether the rider prohibits the funding of Stacy’s prosecution. 20 On appeal, the parties moved to seal certain portions of the record. Another panel of our court provisionally granted both motions. We see no grounds to disturb the rulings, because the sealed portions contain grand-jury testimony and personal identifying information. See AdHealth, Ltd. v. PorterCare Adventist Health Sys., 135 F.4th 1241, 1244 n.1 (10th Cir. 2025); In re Lynde, 922 F.2d 1448, 1451–52 (10th Cir. 1991). So we affirm the provisional orders and will keep those portions of the record sealed. SCO Grp., Inc. v. Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp., 879 F.3d 1062, 1086 n.25 (10th Cir. 2018). We deny as moot the government’s request for an expedited decision. 44