Pardon me, but that was leftist fear mongering.

The game is Arma 3.

Instead, families everywhere prop up a dry piece of kindling and drape it in overloaded electrical wire.

Do you have any textual support for that?

Not quite. Plato had an obviously lying character in a dialogue say he had records (but not with him, of course)

Apparently, the place used to be used by monks as part of their ascetic practices, so it isn't as though Japan just decided to declare its oldest latrine a cultural heritage site for some reason. I hope.

The applicability of state law is straight-forward Erie. The federal court must ask whether the Illinois Supreme Court would hold the lease is invalid. In answering that question, the federal court is allowed to ask whether federal law preempts any state court or legislative pronouncements, but preemption is narrow.

>A landlord can be held liable for conspiracy if they know crimes are taking place on their property.

I agree, and I said as much. That potential liability is different from whether the lease contract is enforceable.

That law does not expressly preempt state contract law, and it would be very hard to argue that conflict preemption applies. It allows the Attorney General to seek a variety of criminal, civil, and administrative penalties. That power does not clearly conflict with a state's ability to decide contractual rights in the absence of the Attorney General's action, and it does not provide for any private enforcement. The scope of federal preemption in the drug context is very narrow.

IAAL. There is no prohibition on leasing space to Vito Corleone, even if you know who Vito Corleone is. If you know about a murder he commits, you can be charged in connection with that, but the lease is still valid, and he still owes you rent.

>A commercial lease for the purpose of running a cannabis business is illegal under federal law.

I have asked repeatedly for someone to identify this law. I know of none. A prohibition on cannabis sales alone won't alter state contract law (which is what the federal court must apply here).

That is a question of choice of law, not federal jurisdiction. Illinois law will usually apply to Illinois properties, but that doesn't mean a New York federal court can't apply Illinois law.

I think you're wrong about the effect of federal drug prohibitions on the validity of leases, but the difference I was referring to is between jurisdiction and a judgment. Jurisdiction allows a court to enter judgment, but it doesn't sat what that judgment should be. If the contract is unenforceable, the court enters judgment for the defendant.

My assumption is that was the argument, because federal courts are certainly the right place to hear state-law disputes between citizens of different states.

A ruling that a contract is not enforceable is a ruling. This is not a jurisdictional matter.

He doesn't need to argue he didn't know. This is a suit for rent, not a defense against a criminal charge of aiding and abetting. This is a question of state contract law, and Illinois is clear that the lease is enforceable. Federal law is vlear that state law applies in this situation.

As you note, the issue here isn't whether the tenant's business is lawful. It is whether the agreement to pay rent for the property is lawful. The unlawfulness of a business does not render every contract that business signs unenforceable against the business. Under federal law, state law provides the rules of decision in this case. Unless there is a federal law specific to cannabis that expressly invalidates the lease, federal law says nothing at all the validity of the lease here.

Whether a contract is valid is a matter of state law. Here, the relevant state law says the contract is valid.

Federal law can preempt state law, but a thing's being illegal under federal law does not by itself preempt state law on contract validity. We would need to examine the federal law being referred to in order to see if it had any effect on state law about leases. I can tell you that prohibiting the sale of cannabis is not enough to touch state law on leases, which is why I asked what federal law the poster was referring to.

>If the contract is for something illegal, the feds are not going to enforce it.

What is the unlawful part of the contract? This is not is contract for the sale of cannabis. This is a lease. It is unlawful to engage in insider trading, but that does not make a lease to someone who violates that law unenforceable, even if the lessor knows about the insider trading.

A federal court sitting in diversity applies state law. Here, state law says the contract is enforceable. Federal law can preempt state law, but the bare illegality of cannabis sales is not going to preempt state contract law concerning leases. That is why I asked what federal law the poster was talking about that would make it illegal to enforce this lease.

>Because this is in federal court, there are federal laws making it illegal to rent to cannabis businesses. So, this is a valid defense.

What federal law are you talking about? State law governs the contract, so the federal law would need to do more than just prohibit an act.

This is not a matter of jurisdiction (the court's ability to rule) but about the enforceability of the contract (what the right ruling is).