Cannabis businesses lose court challenge to US marijuana ban
By Nate Raymond
BOSTON, July 1 (Reuters) -A federal judge on Monday dismissed a lawsuit by several Massachusetts cannabis businesses who argued the federal prohibition on marijuana is unconstitutional, saying only the U.S. Supreme Court could overturn its 2005 ruling upholding the law.
Cannabis businesses represented by prominent litigator David Boies had urged U.S. District Judge Mark Mastroianni in Springfield to conclude the Supreme Court's ruling could not be applied anymore because the landscape surrounding marijuana regulation had changed so much over two decades.
In that case, Gonzales v. Raich, the high court held that under the Commerce Clause, Congress had the authority to criminalize the possession and use of marijuana even in states that permitted its use for medical purposes as it did in the Controlled Substances Act.
But Mastroianni, an appointee of Democratic former President Barack Obama, wrote "the relief sought is inconsistent with binding Supreme Court precedent and, therefore, beyond the authority of this court to grant."
He rejected additional arguments that the ban violated the business' due process rights, saying "there is simply no precedent for concluding that the Plaintiffs enjoy a fundamental right to cultivate, process, and distribute marijuana."
Mastroianni stressed that the businesses were not without other avenues to seek relief, saying they could try to get their arguments before the Supreme Court and remain "free to advocate for marijuana to be reclassified or removed from the CSA."
Spokespeople for the plaintiffs had no immediate comment.
The lawsuit was filed in October by Massachusetts retailer Canna Provisions, marijuana delivery business owner Gyasi Sellers, grower Wiseacre Farm and publicly traded multistate operator Verano Holdings VRNO.NLB.
In challenging enforcement of the CSA as applied to their businesses, the plaintiffs pointed to shifts in how the federal government approached marijuana enforcement as a reason to conclude the Supreme Court's 2005 ruling no longer applied.
As the number of states that have legalized marijuana for medical or recreational use has grown to 38, including Massachusetts, the U.S. Justice Department and Congress have taken steps to abandon their efforts to block the drug's use, their lawyers argued.
Most recently in April, the Justice Department moved to make marijuana use a less serious federal crime by reclassifying it as a Schedule III drug instead of Schedule I, which is reserved for drugs with a high potential for abuse.
Boies during a hearing in May pointed to a 2021 statement that conservative Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in a different case in which he said the 2005 ruling's reasoning may no longer apply and that the ban "may no longer be necessary or proper."
The case is Canna Provisions Inc v. Garland, U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, No. 3:23-cv-30113.
For the plaintiffs: David Boies of Boies Schiller & Flexner
For the U.S.: Jeremy Newman of the U.S. Department of Justice
Read more:
Cannabis businesses challenging US marijuana ban face skeptical judge
Cannabis companies in Massachusetts challenge constitutionality of federal drug law
US Justice Department takes step to make marijuana use a less serious crime
U.S. marijuana ban 'may no longer be necessary' - Justice Thomas
Reporting by Nate Raymond
Latest News
Disclaimer: The XM Group entities provide execution-only service and access to our Online Trading Facility, permitting a person to view and/or use the content available on or via the website, is not intended to change or expand on this, nor does it change or expand on this. Such access and use are always subject to: (i) Terms and Conditions; (ii) Risk Warnings; and (iii) Full Disclaimer. Such content is therefore provided as no more than general information. Particularly, please be aware that the contents of our Online Trading Facility are neither a solicitation, nor an offer to enter any transactions on the financial markets. Trading on any financial market involves a significant level of risk to your capital.
All material published on our Online Trading Facility is intended for educational/informational purposes only, and does not contain – nor should it be considered as containing – financial, investment tax or trading advice and recommendations; or a record of our trading prices; or an offer of, or solicitation for, a transaction in any financial instruments; or unsolicited financial promotions to you.
Any third-party content, as well as content prepared by XM, such as: opinions, news, research, analyses, prices and other information or links to third-party sites contained on this website are provided on an “as-is” basis, as general market commentary, and do not constitute investment advice. To the extent that any content is construed as investment research, you must note and accept that the content was not intended to and has not been prepared in accordance with legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research and as such, it would be considered as marketing communication under the relevant laws and regulations. Please ensure that you have read and understood our Notification on Non-Independent Investment. Research and Risk Warning concerning the foregoing information, which can be accessed here.
