Federal Court to Hear Case Challenging U.S. Cannabis Prohibition

Federal Appeals Court to Hear Landmark Case Challenging U.S. Cannabis Ban

On December 5, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit will hear oral arguments in a pivotal case challenging the federal government’s long-standing prohibition of marijuana. The case, brought forward by several cannabis companies, aims to overturn the federal ban on marijuana, arguing that the prohibition is both outdated and unconstitutional. This hearing comes just three days after a separate legal proceeding on the Biden administration’s proposed reclassification of marijuana—a sign that the issue of cannabis legality is at the forefront of national debate.

The court released the scheduling notice on Wednesday, confirming that the case will be heard at 9:30 a.m. in Boston, and that live audio access will be provided to the public. The court emphasized that the proceedings will not be delayed unless for serious reasons, signaling the importance of this case and its potential impact on federal cannabis policy.

The Plaintiffs: Leading Cannabis Operators Take on Federal Law

The lawsuit originated in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Western Division, and involves major players in the cannabis industry. The plaintiffs include Verano Holdings Corp., a multi-state cannabis operator, as well as Massachusetts-based companies Canna Provisions and Wiseacre Farm. Joining them is Gyasi Sellers, CEO of Treevit, a Massachusetts-based cannabis business. Together, these companies argue that the federal government’s ongoing ban on marijuana is unconstitutional and stands in stark contrast to the evolving legal landscape across the United States.

The plaintiffs contend that while many states have embraced legalization—either for medical or recreational use—the federal prohibition continues to harm businesses and communities that are operating legally under state law. In their appeal, the plaintiffs assert that federal control of state-regulated marijuana is no longer relevant or necessary.

The Legal Argument: A Shift in Congressional Intent

At the heart of the lawsuit is the argument that over the last few decades, Congress has shifted its stance on marijuana enforcement. The plaintiffs’ opening brief points to several key legislative changes that, they argue, demonstrate Congress’s abandonment of its earlier efforts to strictly control or eradicate marijuana.

One of the main points cited by the plaintiffs is a congressional budget provision that prohibits federal funds from being used to interfere with state-legal medical marijuana programs. This provision, known as the Rohrabacher-Farr amendment, has been included in every federal budget since 2014. It bars the U.S. Department of Justice from using federal dollars to prosecute individuals or businesses complying with state medical marijuana laws.

In addition, the brief references the decision by federal lawmakers to permit marijuana legalization in the District of Columbia. The fact that Congress has allowed D.C. to regulate its own marijuana market—while continuing to uphold the federal ban in other states—demonstrates, according to the plaintiffs, a significant departure from the federal government’s original approach to marijuana prohibition.

“Congress has ceased its efforts to eradicate marijuana and has explicitly exempted it from federal enforcement under certain conditions,” the plaintiffs argue in their opening brief. They maintain that, given these changes, the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), which still lists marijuana as a Schedule I substance, can no longer be justified. Schedule I is the most restrictive classification under federal law, reserved for substances that are considered to have no medical use and a high potential for abuse.

A Broader Debate: Federal vs. State Cannabis Laws

The plaintiffs’ case underscores the growing tension between state and federal cannabis laws. To date, 38 states have legalized marijuana for medical use, and 24 have approved it for recreational use. Despite this, the federal government continues to classify marijuana as illegal, creating a patchwork of conflicting laws that complicates business operations, law enforcement, and individual legal rights.

For cannabis companies like Verano Holdings, Canna Provisions, and Wiseacre Farm, the federal ban presents numerous challenges. These businesses are unable to access traditional banking services, are subject to punitive federal taxes, and face the risk of prosecution, even though they operate legally under state law. The plaintiffs argue that the federal prohibition creates an unfair burden on businesses that are otherwise compliant with state regulations.

Upcoming Hearings: Reclassification of Cannabis Under Review

Adding to the significance of this case is the fact that it comes just days after a separate hearing on the Biden administration’s proposal to reclassify marijuana under federal law. Currently, marijuana is classified as a Schedule I substance, along with drugs like heroin and LSD. The administration has signaled its intention to reclassify marijuana as a Schedule III drug, which would acknowledge its medical use and lower its risk profile in the eyes of the federal government.

If reclassification occurs, it would mark a substantial shift in U.S. drug policy. Schedule III drugs, such as anabolic steroids and ketamine, are still controlled substances but are recognized as having legitimate medical applications. Such a move could alleviate some of the federal barriers that cannabis businesses face, but it would not fully legalize marijuana at the federal level. Thus, even if the reclassification were to proceed, the plaintiffs’ case against the federal ban would remain highly relevant.

Constitutional Questions: The Heart of the Case

The core of the plaintiffs’ argument is that the federal ban on marijuana is unconstitutional, especially given the shift in congressional intent and the growing acceptance of cannabis across the country. They argue that the federal government no longer has a compelling interest in prohibiting marijuana, particularly when so many states have chosen to legalize and regulate it.

In making their case, the plaintiffs are relying on a constitutional principle known as federalism—the division of power between the federal government and the states. They contend that, because Congress has effectively allowed states to regulate marijuana within their borders, it should no longer be able to impose a blanket prohibition through the CSA.

The outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications for federal cannabis policy. If the court sides with the plaintiffs, it could lead to the dismantling of the federal ban and open the door to nationwide legalization. On the other hand, if the court upholds the federal government’s authority, it would affirm the existing patchwork of laws and leave cannabis businesses and consumers navigating the complicated intersection of state and federal regulations.

Public Access: A Case of National Interest

Recognizing the public interest in the case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has decided to provide live audio access to the oral arguments. This decision reflects the growing national debate over marijuana policy and the increasing attention to how federal cannabis laws affect states, businesses, and individuals.

The case is one of several ongoing legal battles that challenge the federal government’s approach to marijuana regulation. As more states move toward legalization, and as public support for cannabis reform grows, the courts will continue to play a crucial role in shaping the future of cannabis policy in the United States.

Looking Ahead: December 5 and Beyond

The December 5 hearing in Boston will be a critical moment for the cannabis industry and for the broader movement to reform federal marijuana laws. While it remains unclear how the court will rule, the case signals a growing recognition that federal cannabis prohibition may be on shaky legal ground.

For the plaintiffs, a favorable ruling could dramatically alter the legal landscape for cannabis businesses, freeing them from many of the challenges posed by federal prohibition. For the federal government, however, a loss could force a reexamination of its marijuana policies and potentially lead to significant changes in how marijuana is regulated nationwide.

As the cannabis industry continues to expand and evolve, the outcome of this case could have lasting consequences for businesses, lawmakers, and consumers alike.