Woman’s housing rejection reviewed
Medical marijuana at center of dispute
Medical marijuana patient Mary Cease wants a decent, safe place to live.
With an annual income of less than $10,000 and no criminal record, Ms. Cease would seem to be a strong candidate for Section 8 housing, the subsidized housing program for lowincome residents.
But the Housing Authority of Indiana County has twice denied her application because Section 8 is a federal program, and federal law considers marijuana use in all forms illegal. Last April, a Court of Common Pleas judge agreed, even as he expressed sympathy for Ms. Cease’s situation.
On Thursday, a panel of three Commonwealth Court judges at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law heard arguments based on an appeal by attorneys representing Ms. Cease. The attorneys asked the panel to overturn the lower court decision and to order Indiana County to give her access to Section 8 housing.
A decision is not expected for weeks — and, given the tangle of conflicting state and federal laws involved, a final resolution may not come for many months after that.
Attorney Kevin McKeon, whose Harrisburg-based law firm Hawke McKeon & Sniscak has taken the case on a pro bono basis, argued that his client’s application should not be disqualified because her medical marijuana use is legal under Pennsylvania law.
Representing the housing authority, Kevin Gaydos, with the Indiana County law firm of Supinka & Supinka, countered that the decision was not up to the authority — given that
federal drug laws as well as specific guidance from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development says new applicants who use marijuana should be turned away.
“Our client just wants to follow the law.”
As the judges’ questioning on Thursday showed, Ms. Cease’s case deals with conflicting and even self-contradictory legal and medical issues.
One example: The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration classifies marijuana as a Schedule I drug which it defines as “drugs with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse.”
But Mr. Gaydos, when asked, replied that he was not arguing that medical marijuana had no accepted medical use — a point that dozens of Pennsylvania families would contest by recounting the reduced number of seizures their child now suffers.
Then how can it be grouped with heroin, LSD and ecstasy as an illegal
Schedule I drug, the judge asked?
In fact, marijuana’s medical efficacy has not been researched and tested as extensively as other medications, in large part because there has been limited federal funding for that research — because marijuana is illegal.
That is one reason why, prior to Gov. Tom Wolf signing Pennsylvania’s medical marijuana bill into law in 2016, the Pennsylvania Medical Society — the state’s largest professional association of physicians — initially opposed such legalization, while calling for more research on its safety and effectiveness.
Notably, Pennsylvania physicians still do not write prescriptions for medical marijuana. Rather, they merely certify that patients have one of the qualifying medical conditions that the state requires before patients can buy products at authorized medical marijuana dispensaries. Currently there are 168,000 Pennsylvanians certified to purchase medical marijuana.
Ms. Cease, 68, is certified based on chronic pain due to multiple back surgeries and post-traumatic stress she says is due to previous episodes of domestic abuse.
Much of her appeal filing rests on a technicality: Should the housing authority consider her a current or a new applicant?
The difference lies in language deep in a federal law, the Quality Housing and
Work Responsibility Act, HUD’s public housing reform legislation passed in 1998.
In essence, the law says federally assisted housing programs can turn away new applicants for illegal drug use, but the programs have some discretion for current residents.
Mr. Gaydos said Ms. Cease is a new applicant, as evidenced by the fact that she filled out an application. Mr. McKeon argued that she should be considered a current Section 8 resident, as she previously held a voucher in Luzerne County before fleeing an abusive relationship.
After Thursday’s hearing, Mr. McKeon acknowledged that even if Ms. Cease prevails, it only means the Housing Authority of Indiana County would have the discretion — not an obligation — to accept her application.
And if they turn her down again?
“That would be a different case,” he said.