The U.S. Attorney General and a coalition representing marijuana businesses, represented by a powerful law firm, have agreed to jointly request an extension of the deadline for filing initial briefs in the much-anticipated suit against the federal government. This lawsuit seeks to stop the enforcement of the cannabis prohibition on state-legal activities.
The businesses claim that the state’s continued prohibition of marijuana poses a constitutional violation, and that it creates unwarranted risks to public safety. It also prevents licensed marijuana businesses from obtaining critical financial services or tax deductions available to other industries.
Treevit CEO Gyasi Sellers, Verano Holdings Corp., and the Massachusetts-based cannabis companies Canna Provisions, and Wiseacre Farm filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
In a Friday joint filing, the attorneys representing the state-licensed firms and the Justice Department stated that they had mutually agreed to ask the court to extend the deadline by 28 days for the government to respond to the lawsuit, moving it from December 26th to January 23rd. The plaintiffs will have until March 15, 2019 to file an opposition to a government motion to dismiss.
The document states: “The parties respectfully submit these adjustments are justified in light of counsel’s obligations in other litigation and the holiday period,” The document states that “the parties agree that the requested extensions are reasonable and will not adversely affect any party or delay resolution in this matter.”
Plaintiffs are represented by the law firms Boies Schiller Flexner, Lesser Newman Aleo & Nasser LLP and Boies Schiller Flexner. David Boies is the chairman of the former law firm. He has had a number of clients in the past, including the Justice Department, Al Gore, the plaintiffs of a lawsuit that invalidated California’s same-sex marriage ban, and others.
The lawsuit claims that Congress banned marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act in an effort to eliminate interstate commerce. This was supposed to give the government a base to enforce prohibition on a state-by-state basis. However, since then, legislators and the executive branch “abandoned’ that mission, as more states adopted legalization.
The complaint filed in October states that “despite these changes, federal criminal prohibitions on intrastate marijuana remain in place. This is an unjustified remnant of a policy long abandoned.” This unjustified interference of federal power is harmful to Plaintiffs and threatens communities that they serve. It also lacks a rational purpose.
The fact that state-licensed cannabis businesses are still facing unique financial challenges, such as the lack of banking services, access to credit cards, and federal tax deductions in accordance with IRS code 280E, is often mentioned.
State-regulated marijuana businesses are forced to rely on cash because they do not have access to online or credit card payment. This poses serious risks for public safety. The lawsuit claims that state-regulated marijuana dispensaries are becoming targets for robberies. These collateral harms increase costs for state-regulated cannabis businesses and reduce participation on state-regulated markets. There is less innovation, and fewer choices for consumers.
Attorneys said that the existing prohibition on cannabis under CSA is “an unconstitutional imposition of state sovereignty.” While Congress can ban marijuana in interstate commerce it does not have the power to regulate marijuana that is grown, transported and distributed within state borders. The Commerce Clause and the Necessary & Proper Clause do not permit Congress to go this far.
The lawsuit examines the history of cannabis law in the United States, noting that prohibition was a relatively new policy that came after more than 100-years of permissible use and cultivation. The lawsuit then turns to the federal government’s justification of banning marijuana in accordance with the CSA. This was to prevent interstate trade, as was argued by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2005 case Gonzales v. Raichconcerning access to medical cannabis for California patients .
The companies claim that this justification is no longer valid. Congress has not only renewed the appropriations riders that prohibit the Justice Department to use federal funds to interfere in state medical cannabis program, but also attorneys general have expressed their disinterest in criminalizing marijuana-related activities sanctioned by states.
The suit claims that “what was once a singleminded federal crusade to eradicate the cannabis plant, has now been replaced by a ambivalent and inconsistent set of policies, some designed to reduce federal interference in state efforts at marijuana regulation.”
“The federal government has abandoned its goal to eliminate marijuana from commerce long ago.” “Congress does not have a comprehensive, or even a consistent and rational approach to marijuana regulation,” the report continues. This inconsistent and patchwork approach to marijuana regulations does not allow Congress to regulate marijuana within states.
This point is similar to what conservative Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas stated in 2021. He criticized the “contradictory” and “instable” state-federal cannabis policy conflicts, which have gotten worse as the federal government has continued to take a “half in, half out” approach to this issue.
Plaintiffs’ attorneys said that, “without court intervention the CSA would continue to undermine state attempts to create safe and regulated markets for marijuana within states.” Plaintiffs, as well as the communities that they serve, will suffer irreparable damage so long the CSA continues its prohibition of intrastate marijuana cultivation, manufacturing, possession and distribution.
The lawsuit also mentions the negative impact that criminalization has on communities with low incomes. It notes that because of the prohibition on marijuana commerce within the state, cannabis products are not allowed to be delivered into public housing in Massachusetts.
The complaint claims that “this prohibition is detrimental to Plaintiffs, the citizens of the state, and the states themselves.” Not only are Plaintiffs at risk of being prosecuted, but their businesses face many obstacles that directly result from the CSA’s treatment of intrastate cannabis.
This prohibition has devastating consequences for the industry. Small businesses, in particular, cannot benefit from economies of scale or diversification.
Josh Schiller is a partner in the Boies Schiller-Flexner law firm, which represents the plaintiffs. He said in an X Spaces event in October, “Our clients have decided that we can still hope for a legislative change, but let’s determine whether we can make a permanent difference by going to court.” Schiller also added that Supreme Court ideologies have shifted towards a “federalist,” point of view, in a manner that could bolster the plaintiffs’ case.
He said that the court “is looking to enforce constitutional protections to allow states to regulate intrastate commerce, also known as intrastate commerce.” The Constitution does not give the federal government the right to regulate intrastate trade.
Schiller continued, “We’ve prepared a lawsuit which we want to present to the Supreme Court in a timely manner.” The factual evidence we provide in our complaint – which will be supported by a summary judgement motion that we hope to reach, hopefully not this year but early next year – will be the basis of going to the Supreme Court to demonstrate this evidence.
He also hinted at plans to file future lawsuits as a “second-step” in order to help marijuana companies recoup the losses they have incurred because of the “inequality they have suffered for years”, if the case is successful.
He said: “This case is intended to create a precedent that allows states – and only states – to let these businesses thrive under their regulations.”
According to a press release, Ascend Wellness Holdings (formerly TerrAscend), Green Thumb Industries (formerly Eminence Capital), Poseidon Investment Management, Eminence Capital, and Poseidon Investment Management were “foundational sponsors” of the lawsuit.
The lawsuit is filed as the Drug Enforcement Administration conducts a review of marijuana’s scheduling, after the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services recommended that it be moved from Schedule I to Schedule III in the CSA. This rescheduling would resolve some tax issues, but not allow intrastate trade or legalize marijuana.
In a release issued in October, Boies stated that federal criminalization in states where marijuana is legal, increases the production and sales of unregulated, unsafe marijuana. Federal criminalization denies small legal marijuana businesses access to SBA loan, investors, benefits to their employees, normal banking regulations, and tax discrimination.
“Americans think that cannabis should be available and legal, subject to reasonable regulations by the states.” He said that 38 states had legalized cannabis in some form. The federal government does not have the authority to ban intrastate cannabis trade. The Supreme Court has ruled that outdated precedents dating back decades no longer apply.
Cannabis executives announced their plans to challenge the constitutionality in enforcing the criminalization of intrastate cannabis activity , under the CSA, last year.
The CEO of Ascend Wellness Holdings, at the time of the interview with Marijuana Moment, said that the willingness of a leading constitutional law firm in the United States to take on this case spoke volumes about the seriousness and potential for success of the action. He also expressed his hope that the legal challenge could prompt Congress to pass cannabis bank legislation or other reforms.
He said: “Hopefully, this is another factor that will make the Senate say, ‘you’ve got to get off your ass, or we’re going to lose this issue in the courts.'”
The federal government also has been in court multiple times over the last year, as different parties have challenged the prohibition preventing marijuana users from purchasing or possessing firearms. Some judges and an appeals court ruled that the policy was unconstitutional.
Below, you can read the text in the latest filing about a joint agreement to extend the deadline for the marijuana case:
New study finds that traffic death rates fell in states where marijuana was legalized, while those who kept criminalization saw a’slight increase’
Photo Elements courtesy of rawpixel
Rawpixel and Philip Steffan provided the photo elements.
The post Feds and Marijuana Businesses Agree on Deadline Extension for Lawsuit Challenging Prohibition first appeared on Marijuana Moment.
