What are some oral argument questions for this hypothetical case?

Moot Court Material Hypothetical Case Petitioner: Representing Dr. James Gregory - mJD Respondent: Representing the City of Sunnydale - @ JD Case Facts: DR. JAMES GREGORY v. CITY OF SUNNYDALE California recently passed the California Cares Act (CCA), legalizing the use of medicinal marijuana for those with prescriptions written by state-licensed physicians. The law authorizes the operation of dispensaries under these conditions but states that dispensaries operating outside the law (ie those found selling marijuana for recreational purposes) can be ned or even closed. The law also allows local governments to simply ban or close dispensaries operated according to those standards. Two primary issues were behind California's medical marijuana law. First was the medical value of marijuana. During the legislative hearings, the state legislature was presented with what the bill's sponsors called signicant expert evidence on the medicinal value of marijuana. The second was the state's need for revenue. The legislature also heard evidence on the amount of new revenue that would come to the state as a result of the licensing fees and taxes that would be imposed on medical marijuana consumption. That evidence was based on estimates of the size of the market for medical marijuana, which is substantial. The bill passed, and after signing it, the governor issued a statement saying that in addition to addressing a medical need, the new law would create jobs and raise a substantial amount of revenue. Jobs and revenue are matters of great importance in a state suffering a substantial decline in revenue in the face of the recent economic downturn. Government, the governor continued, must be creative in the face of bad economic times. The governor also emphasized that this was not a general legalization of marijuana. The law laid out 5 clear standards in terms of the need for a prescription by a physician and the requirement that the marijuana only be used for legitimate medical needs. There was also substantial opposition to the legalization of marijuana, even for medicinal purposes. The opponents said it was their belief that the production and distribution of marijuana is linked to organized crime. During the legislative debates, they brought in law enforcement experts who testied that it was their professional opinion that organized crime was involved in the marijuana trade. :: . I .. 1- . I I . . . I Those same experts also said that the use of marijuanaeven if it legalwill lead to the use of harder drugs, addiction, and increased criminal activity. Finally, the experts testied that it was their belief that marijuana legalizationeven for medicinal purposesmay lead to increased use by young people as well as increased crime. After the passage of CCA, Dr. Gregorya state-licensed physician decided to open a medical marijuana dispensary in Sunnydale. He issued a statement to the local media to this effect and he also appeared at a Sunnydale city council meeting to announce his plans. Gregory did this despite the fact that Sunnydale's mayor said that the city would never allow a dispensary to open regardless of the new law. Dr. Gregory obtained the necessary license from the state and paid the required fees to open a dispensary, which was associated with his regular medical practice. His dispensary quickly became one of the largest and most visible in the state. Sunnydale's municipal leaders were livid, and the mayor decided to hold a public hearing during a city council meeting to gauge public reaction concerning the dispensary. Over forty people signed up to speak against the dispensary and only seven signed to speak in its favor. Every one of those speaking against emphasized the same pointsthe link between marijuana and crime; the idea that marijuana use leads to harder drugs and addiction; and the idea that it will lead to more drug use by young people. After the public hearing, one of the mayor's allies on the city council introduced an ordinance that would ban all the opening of any new dispensaries and close all existing dispensaries. Before casting his vote in favor of the ordinance, the mayor noted that a new university study was just published in a prestigious medical journal that found a potential link between the availability of medical marijuana and increased drug use and delinquency among young people. This, the mayor said, changes everything. The city must act immediately in the interest of the health, safety, and welfare of the city's residents. The ordinance passed unanimously. The next day the City closed Dr. Gregory's dispensary and his medical practice. The mayor said the two were an integrated whole and posed a danger to the community. Gregory immediately met with his attorney, and the two of them discussed a federal lawsuit against the city. Gregory wanted his dispensary and medical practice reopened, but he and his attorney also saw an opportunity for a suit with a broader impact. Among other things, the suit would raise two key constitutional issues. First, because the city ordinance arbitrarily closed down two very lucrative businessesthe medical practice and the associated dispensarythe city had taken Dr. Gregory's property without due process. This violated not only the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause, but the Fifth Amendment's prohibition against the taking of private property for a public purpose without just compensation (which applies to the states and their subdivisions). Second, the ordinance also prevented Dr. Gregory from pursuing his chosen profession in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. In addition to violating the due process clause, Gregory argued the First, because the city ordinance arbitrarily closed down two very lucrative businessesthe medical practice and the associated dispensarythe city had taken Dr. Gregory's property without due process. This violated not only the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause, but the Fifth Amendment's prohibition against the taking of private property for a public purpose without just compensation (which applies to the states and their subdivisions). Second, the ordinance also prevented Dr. Gregory from pursuing his chosen profession in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. In addition to violating the due process clause, Gregory argued the ordinance also deprived him of his privileges and immunities as a United States citizen. Gregory lost the case before the California Supreme Court and the case is now before the Supreme Court