In a recent court hearing, attorneys for the Justice Department argued that the federal government’s move to reschedule marijuana “supports the rationality” of the overall law prohibiting cannabis. However, the implications of rescheduling were found to have minimal impact on the ongoing lawsuit brought forth by major marijuana companies challenging federal enforcement against their in-state activities.
Lawsuit Background
The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts’s Western Division held a hearing following a request to make it accessible to the public and press. The lawsuit, Canna Provisions v. Garland, is led by Verano Holdings Corp., Canna Provisions, Wiseacre Farm, and Treevit CEO Gyasi Sellers, represented by law firms Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP and Lesser, Newman, Aleo, and Nasser LLP.
Arguments Presented
Litigator David Boies presented the plaintiffs’ case, pointing out inconsistencies in federal enforcement and the adverse impact of prohibition on marijuana businesses’ ability to access banking services. Judge Mark G. Mastroianni expressed interest in the recent announcement of potential rescheduling but noted it wouldn’t fundamentally change the arguments presented in the case.
Implications of Rescheduling
While the DOJ emphasized that the rescheduling process is ongoing and doesn’t legalize cannabis, it could potentially make banks more willing to work with state-licensed cannabis businesses. However, plaintiffs argue that rescheduling wouldn’t change the federal government’s stance on the illegality of marijuana, impacting businesses similarly.
Constitutional Arguments
The case also delves into constitutional matters, with the government arguing that cannabis legalization attracts out-of-state tourists, thus impacting interstate commerce. Plaintiffs counter that state-regulated activities should be protected under the Commerce Clause.
Despite recent announcements by President Biden regarding rescheduling, the ongoing lawsuit is likely to proceed unaffected, as rescheduling wouldn’t federally legalize cannabis. The court hearing shed light on the complex legal and constitutional issues surrounding marijuana regulation, leaving the outcome of the case uncertain.
