Appeal Filed Against Federal Prohibition by Marijuana Companies
Major Marijuana Companies Challenge Federal Ban on State-Regulated Cannabis Activities.
- Major marijuana companies appeal federal prohibition on state-regulated activities.
- DOJ claims that in-state cannabis draws out-of-state tourists, impacting interstate commerce.
- The plaintiffs believe that federal intervention in state-regulated marijuana markets is overreach, especially when these activities are confined within state borders.
Major marijuana companies, including Verano Holdings Corp. (OTCQX: VRNOF, CA: VRNO) and Canna Provisions, are appealing a federal court ruling that dismissed their case against federal prohibition enforcement on in-state activities. This appeal, involving the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, comes after the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts’s Western Division dismissed their case against the federal government, reported first by Marijuana Moment. The plaintiffs argue that the federal prohibition infringes on state-regulated marijuana activities, invoking the Commerce Clause.
The district court judge acknowledged the plaintiffs’ reasons for challenging cannabis scheduling. However, the judge cited Supreme Court precedent that supports federal authority to regulate controlled substances, even within state borders. The case, known as Canna Provisions v. Garland, was spearheaded by Verano Holdings Corp., Canna Provisions, Wiseacre Farm, and Treevit CEO Gyasi Sellers, with legal representation from Boies Schiller Flexner LLP and Lesser Newman Aleo & Nasser LLP. The prominent litigator David Boies led the lawsuit, known for his involvement in high-profile cases.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) argued that in-state cannabis activities influence interstate commerce by drawing out-of-state tourists. This, they argued, falls under Congress’s authority to regulate such businesses. The plaintiffs countered that the Commerce Clause should prevent DOJ interference in state-legal cannabis activities regulated within state borders. The district court found that the plaintiffs had standing to challenge the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) and recognized a causal link between their economic injuries and the CSA.
Despite these acknowledgments, the court dismissed the case due to the plaintiffs’ failure to state a claim for relief. This dismissal referenced the Supreme Court’s ruling in Gonzales v. Raich, which held that state marijuana laws do not protect against federal prosecution. The court ruled that the federal prohibition of marijuana remains constitutional under current Supreme Court jurisprudence.
Major marijuana companies are appealing this decision, arguing that the federal government lacks a rational basis for banning state-regulated marijuana. The plaintiffs believe that federal intervention in state-regulated marijuana markets is overreach, especially when these activities are confined within state borders. They aim to convince the higher court that the DOJ’s enforcement disrupts state autonomy and local economies. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit’s decision could impact the future of cannabis legalization in the U.S.
