"The State of Colorado authorizes, oversees, protects and profits from a sprawling $100-million-per-month marijuana growing, processing and retailing organization that exported thousands of pounds of marijuana to some 36 states in 2014..."The Court said no. That was the answer the federal government wanted. The Solicitor General argued that Colorado had not "directed or authorized" anyone to take marijuana over the state border. The states can still begin their litigation at the federal district court level.
Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Alito, wrote a dissenting opinion. Thomas's opinion questions the Court's longstanding notion that its original jurisdiction is discretionary. The Constitution says "[i]n all Cases . . . in which a State shall be [a] Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction." Art. III, §2, cl. 2. Nothing in federal statutory law purports to create discretion. So Thomas would like some "reconsideration" of the "discretionary approach."
The present case, Nebraska v. Colorado, is "a suit brought by two States against another State, and thus presents an opportunity for us to reevaluate our discretionary approach to our original jurisdiction." Federal law "prohibits the manufacture, distribution, dispensing, and possession of marijuana," yet Colorado law is written to "legalize, regulate, and facilitate the recreational use of marijuana" Nebraska and Oklahoma, bordering states, say the traffic in marijuana has increased because Colorado has changed its law, so they have "alleged significant harms to their sovereign interests caused by another State."
But Justice Thomas evinces no enthusiasm for the claim: "Whatever the merit of the plaintiff States’ claims, we should let this complaint proceed further rather than denying leave without so much as a word of explanation." So there is your word.