Attorneys representing major marijuana companies in a lawsuit against the U.S. government filed their opening brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on Tuesday, part of an ambitious effort to block the enforcement of federal cannabis prohibition against their state-legal activities.<\/p>\n
Lawyers argue in the filing that Congress has in recent decades \u201cdropped any assumption that federal control of state-regulated marijuana is necessary,\u201d essentially shirking the federal authority confirmed by a 2005 Supreme Court opinion, Gonzales v. Raich<\/em>. That, they conclude, means \u201cthe [Controlled Substances Act\u2019s] ban as applied to state-regulated marijuana cannot be upheld today.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cIn the nearly twenty years since Raich<\/em>, Congress has enacted legislation demonstrating that it no longer seeks to control comprehensively, let alone ban, all marijuana commerce,\u201d the brief contends, asserting lawmakers have \u201cabandoned\u201d their \u201cformer goal of eradicating marijuana from interstate commerce.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cCongress has abandoned its goal of eradicating marijuana and has, in fact, expressly exempted it from federal enforcement in certain circumstances,\u201d it says, pointing to policies embodied in the congressional budget rider that prevents federal funds from being used to interfere with state-legal medical marijuana or lawmakers\u2019 decision to allow marijuana legalization to proceed in the District of Columbia.<\/p>\n \u201cCongress has also dropped any assumption that federal control of state-regulated marijuana is necessary to prevent a \u2018gaping hole in the CSA,’\u201d the brief adds. \u201cYet the federal prohibition on state-regulated marijuana nonetheless continues.\u201d<\/p>\n The latest filing is the next step in a courtroom battle begun last October, when plaintiffs represented by the prestigious law firm Boies Schiller Flexner LLP claimed that perpetuating federal prohibition in state markets is unconstitutional<\/a>. Plaintiffs include multi-state marijuana operator Verano Holdings Corp. and the Massachusetts-based cannabis businesses Canna Provisions and Wiseacre Farm, along with Treevit CEO Gyasi Sellers.<\/p>\n Litigator David Boies\u2014whose list of prior clients includes the Justice Department, former Vice President Al Gore and plaintiffs in the case that led to the invalidation of California\u2019s ban on same-sex marriage\u2014is leading the suit.<\/p>\n This summer, a district judge dismissed the challenge<\/a>, ruling that while there were \u201cpersuasive reasons for a reexamination\u201d of the current scheduling of cannabis and that the plaintiffs had standing to bring the suit, the court\u2019s hands were effectively tied by the Raich<\/em> decision upholding the government\u2019s authority to regulate substances even within state borders.<\/p>\n The dismissal didn\u2019t come as a particular surprise to attorneys for the marijuana companies, who had generally indicated that they expected the case to move up to higher courts, including, eventually, the Supreme Court. Days after the district court\u2019s ruling, attorneys filed notice of their appeal<\/a>.<\/p>\n At the time, Josh Schiller, a lawyer on the case, called the district court decision \u201cthoughtful\u201d and said that \u201con appeal we will continue to press our case that the federal government lacks any rational basis for banning state-regulated marijuana.\u201d<\/p>\n On Tuesday, Schiller told Marijuana Moment that the companies\u2019 \u201cchallenge against the federal government\u2019s unconstitutional ban on marijuana is moving quickly to the next stage.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cToday we\u2019ve filed a brief with the First Circuit Court of Appeals explaining that Congress lacks authority to continue criminalizing the medical and adult use marijuana that is today relied on by people in thirty-eight states across the country,\u201d he said. \u201cWe and our clients are continuing to push forward in this litigation to provide relief for this important industry.\u201d<\/p>\n Lawyers for the government have until October 10 to file a response brief in the case, which Schiller noted is before a scheduled December 2 hearing on the Biden administration\u2019s marijuana rescheduling proposal.<\/p>\n In addition to Congress\u2019s more permissive recent stance toward state-level cannabis legalization in recent years, the new appellate filing argues that the district court ruling \u201cignored the long historical record of marijuana cultivation and use in \u2018our Nation\u2019s history, legal tradition, and practices.’\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cSince before the Founding, Americans have cultivated, traded in, and made use of marijuana\u2026\u00a0These centuries-old legal traditions are now being continued in the marijuana programs in thirty-eight different states, which recognize the ongoing value of marijuana commerce,\u201d the filing says. \u201cTogether, both the historical record and these current practices demonstrate the fundamental nature of the right to cultivate, possess, and market marijuana.\u201d<\/p>\n Central to the case is the degree to which in-state cannabis activity affects interstate commerce. Lawyers for the government, for example, have argued that cannabis legalization attracts out-of-state tourists<\/a>.<\/p>\n DOJ argued in a filing in April that \u201cit is rational to conclude that the regulated marijuana industry in Massachusetts fuels a different kind of marijuana-related interstate commerce: marijuana tourism.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cAs the Supreme Court held decades ago, Congress has the authority to regulate businesses that cater to tourists from out of state, even if the businesses\u2019 transactions occur wholly in-state,\u201d DOJ said in the brief.<\/p>\n Plaintiffs, meanwhile, contended the Constitution\u2019s Commerce Clause should preclude DOJ from interfering in state-legal activity because it is regulated within a state\u2019s borders.<\/p>\n Even while dismissing the case, the district court ruled that plaintiffs indeed had standing to bring the lawsuit.<\/p>\n \u201cPlaintiffs have alleged they variously engage in the cultivation, manufacture, distribution, and possession of marijuana, wholly within Massachusetts and the CSA makes such activity a federal crime,\u201d the decision says. \u201cIn the absence of any dispute regarding redressability, the court finds Plaintiffs have demonstrated that they have standing under Article III to challenge the portions of the CSA applicable to intrastate activities related to marijuana.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cThe court also finds Plaintiffs have shown there is a causal connection between their economic injuries and the CSA,\u201d the judge said. \u201cWhen credited, Plaintiffs\u2019 detailed allegations about their financial injuries meet that burden. Though individual decisions by specific third parties are the final link in the causal chain, the economic injury actually flows from the multitude of similar decisions made by many third parties, all responding to the CSA.\u201d<\/p>\n Nonetheless, the district court sided with the government in its motion to dismiss based on a failure to state a claim for relief.<\/p>\n \u201cGiven the scale of Plaintiffs\u2019 operations, the court cannot find Congress lacks a rational basis for concluding Plaintiffs\u2019 activities substantially affect interstate commerce without ignoring the Supreme Court\u2019s broadly-worded holding\u201d in Gonzales v. Raich<\/em>, the court said.<\/p>\n It will now be up to the First Circuit to decide whether to uphold the lower court\u2019s ruling or confront more directly whether broad federal cannabis prohibition is constitutional.<\/p>\n Read the full brief in Canna Provisions et al. v Garland<\/em><\/a> below:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n Marijuana Reform Advocates Launch \u2018Countdown To Clemency\u2019 Campaign, Pressing Biden To Free Cannabis Prisoners Before His Term Ends<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n Photo elements courtesy of rawpixel<\/a> and Philip Steffan<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n The post Marijuana Companies File Opening Appellate Brief In Case Challenging Federal Prohibition<\/a> appeared first on Marijuana Moment<\/a>.<\/p>\n
Attorneys representing major marijuana companies in a lawsuit against the U.S. government filed their opening brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on Tuesday, part of an ambitious effort to block the enforcement of federal cannabis prohibition against their state-legal activities. Lawyers argue in the filingContinue Reading<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":24,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"false","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[18,81],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/77779"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/24"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=77779"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/77779\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":77780,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/77779\/revisions\/77780"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=77779"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=77779"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=77779"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}\n
\n
\nRead More: Marijuana Companies File Opening Appellate Brief In Case Challenging Federal Prohibition<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"