{"id":78534,"date":"2024-10-23T12:40:34","date_gmt":"2024-10-23T20:40:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/2024\/10\/23\/federal-appeals-court-schedules-oral-argument-in-case-seeking-to-overturn-u-s-marijuana-prohibition\/"},"modified":"2024-10-23T19:45:35","modified_gmt":"2024-10-24T03:45:35","slug":"federal-appeals-court-schedules-oral-argument-in-case-seeking-to-overturn-u-s-marijuana-prohibition","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/2024\/10\/23\/federal-appeals-court-schedules-oral-argument-in-case-seeking-to-overturn-u-s-marijuana-prohibition\/","title":{"rendered":"Federal Appeals Court Schedules Oral Argument In Case Seeking To Overturn U.S. Marijuana Prohibition"},"content":{"rendered":"<\/p>\n

A federal appellate court has set the date for oral arguments in a case aimed at ending the U.S. government\u2019s prohibition on marijuana<\/a>, scheduling the matter for December 5\u2014three days after a separate hearing on the Biden administration\u2019s proposed rescheduling of marijuana.<\/p>\n

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit issued the calendaring notice in the lawsuit on Wednesday, announcing that arguments will be held at 9:30 a.m. in a Boston courthouse. The court clerk said in the announcement that the First Circuit will \u201cprovide live audio access to such arguments to the public\u201d and noted that there would be no continuance, or delay in the case, \u201cexcept for grave cause.\u201d<\/p>\n

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Western Division, by multi-state operator Verano Holdings Corp. and the Massachusetts-based cannabis businesses Canna Provisions and Wiseacre Farm, along with Treevit CEO Gyasi Sellers. The groups argue that the government\u2019s ongoing prohibition on marijuana is unconstitutional.<\/p>\n

The companies argue on appeal that Congress in recent decades has \u201cdropped any assumption that federal control of state-regulated marijuana is necessary.\u201d<\/a><\/p>\n

\u201cCongress has abandoned its goal of eradicating marijuana and has, in fact, expressly exempted it from federal enforcement in certain circumstances,\u201d the companies\u2019 opening brief said, pointing to policies embodied in a congressional budget rider that prevents federal funds from being used to interfere with state-legal medical marijuana as well as federal lawmakers\u2019 decision to allow marijuana legalization to proceed in the District of Columbia.<\/p>\n

In light of those actions, the brief asserts, \u201cthe CSA\u2019s ban as applied to state-regulated marijuana cannot be upheld today.\u201d<\/p>\n

An earlier press release noted that other companies\u2014including Ascend Wellness Holdings, TerrAscend, Green Thumb Industries, Eminence Capital and Poseidon Investment Management\u2014are \u201cfoundational supporters\u201d of the suit.<\/p>\n

Jason Wild, founder of TerrAscend, welcomed Wednesday\u2019s announcement of oral arguments in the case. \u201cGreat news,\u201d he wrote on social media. \u201cThe court does not always hold oral argument on an appeal, nor hold it this quickly.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n

Boies case update:
Great news! The First Circuit just scheduled oral arguments in our appeal for December 5 at 930amin Boston.\u00a0 This is a very welcome development.\u00a0 The court does not always hold oral argument on an appeal, nor hold it this quickly.\u00a0 The December 5 date means\u2026<\/p>\n

\u2014 Jason Wild (@JasonGWild) October 23, 2024<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\n

The law firms Boies Schiller Flexner LLP and Lesser, Newman, Aleo & Nasser LLP are representing the plaintiffs. David Boies, chairman of the former firm, has a long list of prior clients that includes the Justice Department, former Vice President Al Gore (D) and the plaintiffs in a case that led to the invalidation of California\u2019s ban on same-sex marriage, among others.<\/p>\n

In a separate filing in the case earlier this month, lawyers at the Department of Justice (DOJ) warned that the companies\u2019 challenge, if it succeeds, would \u201cfrustrate\u201d the planned move of marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III<\/a> of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), effectively render Congress powerless to regulate marijuana if it\u2019s rescheduled.<\/p>\n

\u201cPlaintiffs\u2019 position would also frustrate the Department\u2019s proposal to place marijuana on Schedule III of the CSA,\u201d DOJ said. \u201cUnder plaintiffs\u2019 theory, Congress would lack congressional authority to regulate marijuana as a Schedule III drug for the same reasons that it could not regulate marijuana as a Schedule I drug.\u201d<\/p>\n

This summer, a district judge\u00a0dismissed 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\u00a0Raich<\/em>\u00a0decision 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\u00a0filed 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

Central to the case is the degree to which in-state cannabis activity affects interstate commerce. Lawyers for the government, for example, have previously\u00a0argued 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\u00a0Gonzales 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 First Circuit\u2019s notice of oral argument<\/a> in the case below:<\/strong><\/p>\n

\n

\n

DEA Judge Denies Agency\u2019s Request To Block Witnesses In Hearing Challenging Proposed Psychedelics Ban<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\n

Photo elements courtesy of rawpixel<\/a> and Philip Steffan<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n

The post Federal Appeals Court Schedules Oral Argument In Case Seeking To Overturn U.S. Marijuana Prohibition<\/a> appeared first on Marijuana Moment<\/a>.<\/p>\n


\n
\nRead More: Federal Appeals Court Schedules Oral Argument In Case Seeking To Overturn U.S. Marijuana Prohibition<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

A federal appellate court has set the date for oral arguments in a case aimed at ending the U.S. government\u2019s prohibition on marijuana, scheduling the matter for December 5\u2014three days after a separate hearing on the Biden administration\u2019s proposed rescheduling of marijuana. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the FirstContinue 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\/78534"}],"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=78534"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/78534\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":78535,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/78534\/revisions\/78535"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=78534"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=78534"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=78534"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}