Differing Court Views on Medical Cannabis Protections Highlighted

Federal Court Interpretations Highlight Divergence in Cannabis Policy as Biden Administration Moves Toward Rescheduling

As the Biden administration progresses with its plan to reschedule marijuana, a new report from the Congressional Research Service (CRS) has brought attention to the growing complexities of federal cannabis policy. Specifically, the report highlights the differing interpretations of a key provision in federal law—the appropriations rider—designed to protect state medical cannabis programs from federal interference. These varying court rulings have sparked concerns and raised important questions for policymakers as they consider the future of cannabis regulation.

Overview of the Appropriations Rider: Legal Protections for State Medical Cannabis Programs

The appropriations rider, which has been part of federal law since 2014, prohibits the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) from using federal funds to interfere with state medical marijuana programs. Initially, this rider was enacted to protect state-level medical marijuana laws from federal enforcement actions that could undermine these programs. As the cannabis industry continues to grow and evolve, however, several legal challenges have exposed gaps in how these protections should be applied, leaving courts to weigh in on their interpretation.

According to the CRS, the appropriations rider generally bars DOJ from taking legal action against states in their efforts to enforce medical marijuana laws. Furthermore, it has been interpreted to prohibit federal prosecutions of individuals or organizations involved in the production, distribution, or possession of marijuana, as long as they are in compliance with their respective state laws. However, the policy’s application has not been without controversy, as federal courts have differed on how strictly the rider should be enforced.

Two Diverging Court Interpretations: Ninth Circuit vs. First Circuit

At the heart of the CRS report are two distinct federal court rulings that diverge significantly in their interpretation of the appropriations rider. These rulings come from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

In a 2016 case, the Ninth Circuit ruled that while the appropriations rider prevented the DOJ from obstructing state medical cannabis laws, it allowed for federal courts to impose certain restrictions. For instance, the Ninth Circuit held that registered medical cannabis patients could be prohibited from using marijuana while under probation, even if they were otherwise compliant with state law. Furthermore, the court established a “strict compliance” standard, stating that individuals must adhere to all conditions of their state medical cannabis law to be protected by the rider. If individuals deviated from state law—even in technical ways—they could still face federal prosecution.

The Ninth Circuit’s ruling raised concerns about how the federal government might enforce this standard and whether individuals and organizations could inadvertently violate state regulations. The case underscored the complexity of medical marijuana laws, which often vary from state to state, and highlighted the challenges of maintaining “strict compliance.”

By contrast, the First Circuit, in a 2022 case involving medical cannabis workers in Maine, adopted a much broader interpretation of the rider. In this case, the court found that strict compliance with state laws was not a requirement for federal protections under the rider. The First Circuit noted that the rider’s text did not explicitly mandate strict adherence to state law, and emphasized that the intricate and often ambiguous nature of state marijuana regulations made such a requirement impractical.

In its ruling, the First Circuit warned that enforcing strict compliance could discourage state-legal medical marijuana activities and hinder states from fully implementing their medical marijuana laws. The court’s interpretation thus made it easier for individuals to argue that they were entitled to protections under the appropriations rider, even if they had not strictly adhered to every nuance of state law.

The Potential Impact on Federal Marijuana Prosecutions

As the CRS report points out, the differences between the Ninth and First Circuit interpretations could have significant consequences for future federal marijuana prosecutions. While the Ninth Circuit’s “strict compliance” standard could make it harder for individuals to invoke the rider in their defense, the First Circuit’s more lenient approach may allow more defendants to successfully argue that federal prosecution violates the rider—even if they did not comply with every element of their state law.

However, the practical effect of these differing interpretations may not be immediately clear. Historically, federal marijuana prosecutions have focused on individuals and organizations that have clearly violated state law, often making the appropriations rider less relevant in these cases. Nevertheless, the First Circuit’s broader standard could pave the way for more individuals to use the rider to block federal prosecution.

The Role of Congress: Clarifying or Expanding the Rider’s Protections

With federal courts divided on the scope of the appropriations rider, the CRS report also raises the possibility that Congress could act to clarify or expand the protections offered by the rider. Specifically, Congress could amend the policy to specify whether “strict compliance” or “substantial compliance” with state medical marijuana laws is required for individuals to be shielded from federal prosecution. Such a clarification could resolve the legal ambiguity and ensure that individuals and businesses operating within state legal frameworks are adequately protected.

Additionally, Congress could choose to expand the scope of the rider to include protections for recreational marijuana programs, which are not currently covered by the policy. Despite several efforts in the past, such expansions have not been successful, but the growing public support for marijuana legalization could spur new attempts in the future.

Another option is for Congress to allow the appropriations rider to expire or be repealed altogether, particularly if lawmakers believe that state medical cannabis programs are sufficiently protected through other legal means. Alternatively, Congress could take a more aggressive stance and pass comprehensive cannabis reform legislation that legalizes marijuana at the federal level and removes any remaining legal uncertainties.

Biden Administration’s Marijuana Rescheduling Proposal: A Game-Changer?

As the Biden administration works toward rescheduling marijuana—potentially moving it from a Schedule I to a Schedule III controlled substance under the Controlled Substances Act—the future of the appropriations rider could be directly impacted. However, CRS analysts note that the rescheduling proposal would not affect the rider, as the rider’s protections apply to all marijuana, regardless of its scheduling status under federal law.

In essence, rescheduling marijuana would likely have little direct impact on the appropriations rider, unless Congress takes additional steps to amend the policy or implement broader cannabis reforms. That said, the administration’s proposal could play a crucial role in shaping the broader cannabis policy landscape in the years to come.

Looking Ahead: What’s Next for Federal Cannabis Policy?

As Congress and the Biden administration continue to navigate the complexities of marijuana policy, the ongoing debate over the appropriations rider serves as a key flashpoint in the broader discussion about cannabis legalization and regulation. While the legal landscape remains uncertain, there is growing recognition that federal marijuana reform is long overdue, and changes to the rider may be just one part of a much larger conversation about cannabis in America.

Whether through court rulings, legislative action, or executive orders, the next few years could see significant shifts in how marijuana is regulated and enforced at the federal level. As such, lawmakers, industry stakeholders, and advocates will continue to monitor these developments closely, as they prepare for a future where cannabis is likely to play an increasingly prominent role in American society and the economy.