WASHINGTON, Nov. 27 (UPI) -- The Supreme Court Monday said it would hear arguments this term on whether the medical use of marijuana violates federal law, despite being approved by voters in some states.

The Justice Department asked the high court to review a lower-court ruling in favor of the Oakland (Calif.) Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative.

The Supreme Court's 1-paragraph order Monday morning granting review came as no surprise. By a vote of 7-1 on Aug. 29, the justices blocked the essential parts of the lower-court ruling that in effect allowed the medical use of marijuana in California.

Before the Supreme Court action, a federal appeals court issued a ruling saying the Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative could use medical need as a defense in the distribution of marijuana. The appeals court ruled that a federal judge would have to modify an injunction in such a way that it would allow the medical use of marijuana.

The Justice Department then asked the Supreme Court to intervene, saying that the appeals court ruling would allow the "Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative to distribute marijuana to perhaps thousands of persons, wholly outside the stringent restrictions that Congress enacted in the Controlled Substances Act to protect the public health and safety."

"This case presents the question whether a court may issue an injunction that purports to permit the distribution of marijuana to people asserting a medical need for it, even though Congress has expressly prohibited such conduct in the Controlled Substances Act," the Justice Department said in an August filing by U.S. Solicitor General Seth Waxman. The filing complained that the federal judge, under the mandate of the appeals court ruling, had issued an order "which held that 'medical necessity' is a 'legally cognizable defense' to a charge of distributing drugs in violation of the CSA."

On the other side, the Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative told the justices that the injunction by the judge allowing medical marijuana "clearly is in the public interest," and should not be blocked while the legal issue plays itself out in the lower courts.

"The government fails to explain how denying necessary medicine to seriously ill and dying patients during a protracted appellate process possibly could advance the public interest," the club's filing said.

In 1996, California became one of the few states allowing a prescribed medical use for marijuana when voters passed Proposition 215. Some doctors and patients say that marijuana is useful in a number of medical circumstances, including restoring the appetites and easing the pain of patients undergoing chemotherapy.

The U.S. attorney's office filed a civil action against the Oakland Cannabis Club in January 1998 after undercover government agents purchased marijuana there. The federal judge subsequently issued a preliminary injunction against the club, ordering it not to engage "in the manufacture or distribution of marijuana, or the possession of marijuana with the intent to manufacture and distribute...."

The cooperative asked the judge and later a federal appeals court to modify the injunction to include a broad exemption for "persons claiming a 'medical necessity' to smoke marijuana." The club asked for permission to distribute marijuana to people who obtain a doctor's certificate saying the marijuana was needed to ease or treat a serious medical condition.

Though the judge refused the cooperative's request, the appeals court reversed him.

The appeals court ordered changes in the original injunction, saying the judge did not consider the "strong public interest in the availability of a doctor-prescribed treatment that would help ameliorate the condition and relieve the pain and suffering of a large group of persons with serious or fatal illness."

When neither the judge nor the appeals court would stay the effects of the modified injunction, the Justice Department asked the Supreme Court for a stay.

In asking that argument be heard in the case, the Justice Department said in a petition that the appeals court ruling clearly violates the intent of Congress in the Controlled Substances Act.

Justice Stephen Breyer took no part in either the vote to grant a stay in the case or the decision to hear argument, though he gave no explanation for his recusal. However, Breyer's brother is the judge who made the original ruling in the case.