Canna Provisions v. Garland

Last updated

Canna Provisions, Gyasi Sellers, Wiseacre Farm, Verano Holdings v. Merrick Garland is a lawsuit brought in late 2023 by cannabis industry entities against the U.S. Attorney General, arguing that the scheduling of cannabis under the Controlled Substances Act is unconstitutional.

Contents

History

The case was brought in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts in late 2023. [1] [2] [3] Boies Schiller Flexner LLP is one of the law firms representing the plaintiffs. [4] Department of Justice moved to have the case dismissed, [5] then later argued that the federal government had an interest in curtailing cannabis tourism between states. [6] The case was scheduled for oral arguments on May 22, 2024. [6] In July 2024, United States District Judge Mark G. Mastroianni dismissed the case; however, the plaintiffs subsequently filed an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. [7] The First Circuit heard arguments in December, 2024. [8]

The legal theory of the case is that although in Gonzales v. Raich , the Supreme Court "reasoned that because Congress intended to 'eradicate' cannabis from interstate commerce, the federal government had a rational and thus lawful purpose in encroaching on states' cannabis regulation", this Commerce Clause-centric logic no longer pertains in the 2020s, as the Federal Government "continues to largely take a hands-off approach with regard to state-legal cannabis" under the Cole Memorandum and its successors, appropriations riders, [a] and other institutional practices, including blanket Presidential pardons issued under the Biden Administration for prior cannabis-related offenses. [10] [11] In the plaintiffs' words,

The federal government no longer operates under any assumption that banning intrastate marijuana is necessary to policing interstate marijuana... [and] long ago abandoned the goal of eliminating marijuana from commerce. Nor does Congress have any comprehensive — or even consistent and rational — approach to marijuana regulation. This inconsistent, patchwork approach to marijuana regulation provides no basis for Congress to regulate intrastate marijuana. [12]

The theory may follow comments made by Justice Thomas in a 2021 response to a request for certiorari, in which Thomas said Gonzales may no longer apply and Federal prohibition "may no longer be necessary or proper." [13]

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ "In each fiscal year since FY2015, Congress has included provisions in appropriations acts that prohibit DOJ from using appropriated funds to prevent certain states, territories, and DC from “implementing their own laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana” ... [T]he appropriations rider bars DOJ from taking legal action against the states directly in order to prevent them from promulgating or enforcing medical marijuana laws. In addition, federal courts have interpreted the rider to prohibit certain federal prosecutions of private individuals or organizations that produce, distribute, or possess marijuana in accordance with state medical marijuana laws." [9]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">1996 California Proposition 215</span> California law permitting medical marijuana

Proposition 215, or the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, is a California law permitting the use of medical cannabis despite marijuana's lack of the normal Food and Drug Administration testing for safety and efficacy. It was enacted, on November 5, 1996, by means of the initiative process, and passed with 5,382,915 (55.6%) votes in favor and 4,301,960 (44.4%) against.

The Commerce Clause describes an enumerated power listed in the United States Constitution. The clause states that the United States Congress shall have power "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes". Courts and commentators have tended to discuss each of these three areas of commerce as a separate power granted to Congress. It is common to see the individual components of the Commerce Clause referred to under specific terms: the Foreign Commerce Clause, the Interstate Commerce Clause, and the Indian Commerce Clause.

Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), was a landmark United States Supreme Court decision that dramatically increased the regulatory power of the federal government. It remains as one of the most important and far-reaching cases concerning the New Deal, and it set a precedent for an expansive reading of the U.S. Constitution's Commerce Clause for decades to come. The goal of the legal challenge was to end the entire federal crop support program by declaring it unconstitutional.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Removal of cannabis from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act</span> Proposed changes to the legal status of cannabis in U.S. federal law

In the United States, the removal of cannabis from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act, the category reserved for drugs that have "no currently accepted medical use", is a proposed legal and administrative change in cannabis-related law at the federal level. After being proposed repeatedly since 1972, the U.S. Department of Justice initiated 2024 rulemaking to reschedule cannabis to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act. The majority of 2024 public comments supported descheduling, decriminalizing, or legalizing marijuana at the federal level.

In United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative, 532 U.S. 483 (2001), the United States Supreme Court rejected the common-law medical necessity defense to crimes enacted under the federal Controlled Substances Act of 1970, regardless of their legal status under the laws of states such as California that recognize a medical use for marijuana. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative was represented by Gerald Uelmen.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Legalization of non-medical cannabis in the United States</span>

In the United States, the non-medical use of cannabis is legalized in 24 states and decriminalized in 7 states, as of November 2023. Decriminalization refers to a policy of reduced penalties for cannabis offenses, typically involving a civil penalty for possessing small amounts, instead of criminal prosecution or the threat of arrest. In jurisdictions without penalty the policy is referred to as legalization, although the term decriminalization is sometimes used for this purpose as well.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Legal history of cannabis in the United States</span>

In the United States, increased restrictions and labeling of cannabis as a poison began in many states from 1906 onward, and outright prohibitions began in the 1920s. By the mid-1930s cannabis was regulated as a drug in every state, including 35 states that adopted the Uniform State Narcotic Drug Act. The first national regulation was the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937.

The Rohrabacher–Farr amendment is legislation introduced by U.S. Representative Maurice Hinchey in 2001, prohibiting the Justice Department from spending funds to interfere with the implementation of state medical cannabis laws. It passed the House in May 2014 after six previously failed attempts, becoming law in December 2014 as part of an omnibus spending bill. The passage of the amendment was the first time either chamber of Congress had voted to protect medical cannabis patients, and is viewed as a historic victory for cannabis reform advocates at the federal level. The amendment does not change the legal status of cannabis, however, and must be renewed each fiscal year in order to remain in effect.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cannabis in the United States</span>

The use, sale, and possession of cannabis containing over 0.3% THC by dry weight in the United States, despite laws in many states permitting it under various circumstances, is illegal under federal law. As a Schedule I drug under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) of 1970, cannabis containing over 0.3% THC by dry weight is considered to have "no accepted medical use" and a high potential for abuse and physical or psychological dependence. Cannabis use is illegal for any reason, with the exception of FDA-approved research programs. However, individual states have enacted legislation permitting exemptions for various uses, including medical, industrial, and recreational use.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Medical cannabis in the United States</span>

In the United States, the use of cannabis for medical purposes is legal in 38 states, four out of five permanently inhabited U.S. territories, and the District of Columbia, as of March 2023. Ten other states have more restrictive laws limiting THC content, for the purpose of allowing access to products that are rich in cannabidiol (CBD), a non-psychoactive component of cannabis. There is significant variation in medical cannabis laws from state to state, including how it is produced and distributed, how it can be consumed, and what medical conditions it can be used for.

Several authors have put forth arguments concerning the legality of the war on drugs. In his essay The Drug War and the Constitution, libertarian philosopher Paul Hager makes the case that the War on Drugs in the United States is an illegal form of prohibition, which violates the principles of a limited government embodied in the United States Constitution.

Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005), was a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that, under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Congress may criminalize the production and use of homegrown cannabis even if state law allows its use for medicinal purposes.

Since the passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), there have been numerous actions in federal courts to challenge the constitutionality of the legislation. They include challenges by states against the ACA, reactions from legal experts with respect to its constitutionality, several federal court rulings on the ACA's constitutionality, the final ruling on the constitutionality of the legislation by the U.S. Supreme Court in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, and notable subsequent lawsuits challenging the ACA. The Supreme Court upheld ACA for a third time in a June 2021 decision.

<i>Conant v. Walters</i> 2002 Court of Appeals case

Conant v. Walters, 309 F.3d 629, is a legal case decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which affirmed the right of physicians to recommend medical marijuana. The Court of Appeals affirmed the earlier decision of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, which was filed under the caption Conant v. McCaffrey. Though the case involved chronic patients with untreatable diseases, the decision does not name these conditions as a prerequisite, nor does it limit drugs which may or may not be illegal.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act</span> US marijuana decriminalization bills

The Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act is a series of federal marijuana decriminalization bills that have been introduced multiple times in the United States Congress.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cannabis in Arizona</span>

Cannabis in Arizona is legal for recreational use. A 2020 initiative to legalize recreational use passed with 60% of the vote. Possession and cultivation of recreational cannabis became legal on November 30, 2020, with the first state-licensed sales occurring on January 22, 2021.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cole Memorandum</span> 2013 memo by US Deputy Attorney General

The Cole Memorandum was a United States Department of Justice memorandum issued August 29, 2013, by United States Deputy Attorney General James M. Cole during the presidency of Barack Obama. The memorandum, sent to all United States Attorneys, governed federal prosecution of offenses related to marijuana. The memo stated that given its limited resources, the Justice Department would not enforce federal marijuana prohibition in states that "enacted laws legalizing marijuana in some form and ... implemented strong and effective regulatory and enforcement systems to control the cultivation, distribution, sale, and possession of marijuana," except where a lack of federal enforcement would undermine federal priorities.

Hemp Industries Association v. Drug Enforcement Administration, often shortened to HIA v. DEA, refers to two lawsuits concerning the legality of cannabis extracts and other products from the hemp plant that have very low or nonexistent natural THC levels, including CBD oil, in the United States. The first is from 2004 and the second is from 2018.

The Strengthening the Tenth Amendment Through Entrusting States (STATES) Act was a bill proposed in the 115th United States Congress that would recognize legalization of cannabis and the U.S. state laws that have legalized it through their legislatures or citizen initiative. It was introduced on June 7, 2018, by Senators Cory Gardner and Elizabeth Warren. A companion bill was introduced the same day in the House of Representatives, sponsored by Earl Blumenauer and David Joyce. The act would amend the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 to exempt from federal enforcement individuals or corporations in states who are in compliance with U.S. state, U.S. territory and the District of Columbia, or tribal law on cannabis, with certain additional provisions such as minimum ages. The banking provisions of the STATES Act have been reintroduced as the Secure and Fair Enforcement (SAFE) Banking Act of 2019 in the 116th U.S. Congress by Ed Perlmutter in the House, and by Jeff Merkley in the Senate. As of September 18, 2019, the House bill had 206 cosponsors, and the Senate bill had 33 cosponsors.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act</span> Proposed U.S. federal legislation to decriminalize cannabis

The Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act, also known as the MORE Act, is a proposed piece of U.S. federal legislation that would deschedule cannabis from the Controlled Substances Act and enact various criminal and social justice reforms related to cannabis, including the expungement of prior convictions.

References

  1. ↑ Novak Jones 2023.
  2. ↑ Sullum 2023.
  3. ↑ Jaeger 2023.
  4. ↑ Miller 2023.
  5. ↑ Zdinjak 2024.
  6. 1 2 Adlin 2024.
  7. ↑ Gelsi, Steve (2 July 2024). "Cannabis companies to appeal federal commerce clause lawsuit". MarketWatch. Retrieved 5 November 2024.
  8. ↑ Ben Adlin (December 5, 2024), "Appeals Court Hears Arguments In Marijuana Case Seeking To Block Federal Prohibition Enforcement", Marijuana Moment
  9. ↑ Congressional Research Service 2023, p. 2.
  10. ↑ McKillop 2023.
  11. ↑ Thompson 2024.
  12. ↑ Canna Provisions complaint 23-cv-30113
  13. ↑ Nate Raymond (May 22, 2024). "Cannabis businesses challenging US marijuana ban face skeptical judge". Reuters.

Sources

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.