The United States Supreme Court case, United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative and Jeffrey Jones (2000), centered around the issue of medical marijuana use. The federal government sued the Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Cooperative for distributing marijuana in violation of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). The cooperative argued that it should be allowed to distribute marijuana on grounds of "medical necessity" - a defense not explicitly mentioned in CSA but recognized by common law. However, the Supreme Court ruled against this argument stating that there is no medical necessity exception to prohibitions outlined under CSA. This ruling emphasized Congress's determination that marijuana has no accepted medical uses at all times and circumstances, thereby upholding its classification as a Schedule I drug under federal law.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative and Jeffrey Jones, Justice Stevens argued that there should be a medical necessity defense to charges of distributing marijuana under federal law. He contended that the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) does not explicitly prohibit this defense, and thus it is up to courts to determine its validity on a case-by-case basis. Furthermore, he pointed out that Congress has recognized the potential medicinal value of marijuana by providing for a rescheduling procedure in the CSA itself. Therefore, he concluded that an absolute ban on distribution might not always serve public interest or congressional intent when weighed against serious health risks faced by patients who could benefit from cannabis use medically.