No they didn't. I didn't say they did. They declared it unconstitutional in Raich v Ashcroft, the case to which I was referring.
"it was simply stating that the act didn't have the same scope of applicability that Ashcroft said it had. You interpreted differently, so you called it treasonous."
"But because the wording of the regulations do not actually mention assisted suicide, the DEA issued a regulatory "interpretation" informing doctors that prescribing federally regulated substances to assist suicides would not be a "legitimate medical purpose" under federal law. (An administrative interpretation establishes official policy for enforcing government regulations when the words of a pertinent regulation are unspecific or vague about the matter being interpreted.)
The 9th had no excuse to "interpet" it differently. The "interpretation" is crystal clear. They chose to interpret, and implement, it differently.
This is flat-out state nullification of federal law, a treasonous act.
Courts aren't supposed to interpret laws? Where are you getting this from? The whole reason for having independent courts is to provide an independent, impartial (not to mention stable) interpretation of the laws, not one dependent on political influences and subject to constant shifts from administration to administration, which is what happens when you allow the executive branch exclusive power to interpret laws.
I think you and I both know that the 9th was hardly unprecedented in overruling an administrative agency in how the laws are interpreted.