This week the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed a lawsuit filed by Nebraska and Oklahoma over Colorado’s legalization of adult use marijuana. Despite lawsuit claims from Nebraska and Oklahoma that Colorado’s legalization of adult use of marijuana “increased the flow of marijuana over their borders,” the U.S. Supreme Court decided Monday to deny hearing the complaint. In a 6 to 2 majority (Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas disagreed), the court turned the case away without explaining its reasoning. Nebraska and Oklahoma, which border Colorado, first filed lawsuits against the Mile High State in early 2014 after Colorado dispensaries began selling cannabis for recreational use. The neighboring states claim that marijuana being brought over the border from Colorado force them to spend more money on “law enforcement, judicial system, and penal system resources.” The states were not specifically challenging Colorado’s legalization, but rather the state’s legalization framework, claiming that Colorado’s manufacturing, possession, and distribution regulations weren’t strict enough to prevent marijuana from being illegally carried into their states. The lawsuit was filed under “original jurisdiction,” a rarely used Supreme Court process that involves the case being presented to the directly to the justices instead of being handled by lower courts. In Colorado’s written defense, it argued that the neighboring states should take up their issue with the federal government. “A state does not violate the sovereign rights of another state, by making a policy decision that parts ways with its neighbors,” read Colorado’s defense. Voters in Colorado legalized adult use marijuana in 2012. Prior to the court’s decision, the Obama Justice Department encouraged the Supreme Court not to hear the case. U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli filed court papers in December 2015 stating that the case was not the type of dispute appropriate for the Supreme Court. “Entertaining the type of dispute at issue here — essentially that one state’s laws make it more likely that third parties will violate federal and state law in another state — would represent a substantial and unwarranted expansion of this court’s jurisdiction,” he wrote.