The debate topic was this: If it isn't illegal to use medical marijuana, does that make it a "lawful" activity for which employers can't fire you?
How the justices answer that question will, for the first time, define whether employers must tolerate medical-marijuana use by their employees and will set whether medical-marijuana patients have any job protection for their cannabis use. The outcome also has implications for recreational marijuana use, which presents similar questions.
In an era of more permissive state laws on marijuana, the justices' decision could significantly affect whether people take advantage of those laws. An attorney for Brandon Coats, a quadriplegic who was fired for medical-marijuana use and who brought the case, said if the justices rule strictly against patients, "that means our medical-marijuana amendment is really just for the unemployed."
Vance Knapp, an attorney who is not connected to the case but has followed it closely, said a ruling in favor of Coats could throw employment law "into chaos."