A marijuana company in Oregon challenged the state’s ban against interstate cannabis commerce. Last week, a federal judge granted permission for the case to be heard in court. The company argued that it has the “right to operate its business” regardless of whether it is federally legal or not.
In November , a cannabis wholesaler, Jefferson Packing House from Medford, sued Oregon officials to repeal the state’s export ban. The law, according to its attorneys, violates the U.S. Constitution’s Dormant Commerce Clause. This provision is meant to encourage competition between states by preventing them independently regulating interstate commerce.
According to the suit, the ban on exports “harms not just Oregon growers, processors and wholesalers but also non-residents who are denied access the high-quality marijuana products made in Oregon unless the person physically travels to Oregon to buy those products.”
The state’s lawyers have requested that the case be dismissed, claiming Jefferson does not have standing. They wrote in a January motion that federal law prohibits cannabis products being exported. Accordingly, the state’s lawyers asked the court to dismiss the case.
The state filed says that “That doctrine prohibits States from treating interstate or intrastate commerce differently.” “Here, however there is no interstate commerce that you should treat differently.”
Jefferson replied on March 17 that the federal Controlled Substances Act did not “eliminate” marijuana commerce. A criminal statute would have effected the same effect.
“Plaintiff’s injuries result from the fact that it must operate within an environment in which Oregon law unconstitutionally regulates commerce (illegal or legal) in which Plaintiff wishes to engage,” according to the most recent filing. “Including competing with out-of-state marijuana businesses, accessing outside customers and taking advantage of economies of scale.”
In response, the state asks for a federal judge’s permission to hear oral argument. Neither the request nor the state’s motion to dismiss were granted.
Federal law makes it illegal to sell cannabis in the United States, regardless of its legal status. There is currently no federal protection to protect consumers, businesses or patients. However, states are not legally required by law to enforce federal laws.
According to a separate letter to defendants, the company acknowledged that it doesn’t anticipate the lawsuit will overturn federal cannabis prohibition. It says Oregon’s law should not be used as an obstacle to cross-border commerce.
The letter stated that “we recognize that marijuana remains illegal under federal law, but that this lawsuit won’t change that fact.” “We believe that Oregon should fully support its local marijuana industry and that Oregon law should not prohibit marijuana exports to other states.
The Oregon Governor is among the named defendants. Tina Kotek (D), Attorney general Ellen Rosenblum, and the head the Oregon Liquor and Cannabis Commission are named as defendants.
In fact, Kate Brown (D), the former governor of Oregon, signed a 2019 bill that allowed the state to export and import cannabis. The state was experiencing a large oversupply at the time. This policy change was meant to allow Oregon businesses to export some of this excess to countries with higher prices.
However, Oregon can only enter into cross-border agreements (with other states) if it is made legal by the federal government or if an administrative policy of the Justice Department allows for such commerce. As it stands, there is no federal policy.
A federal appellate court’s August decision in a Maine case is at least partially responsible for the company’s confidence regarding the suit.
The U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit ruled in that case that Maine’s law banning non-residents owning medical marijuana businesses was unconstitutional as it violated the Dormant Commerce Clause. Even though the Oregon case isn’t within the First Circuit and therefore not bound by this precedent, legal experts speculate that the decision could have greater implications for interstate cannabis commerce.
Oregon is not the only state that has prepared for interstate cannabis trade. California’s governor has signed a similar bill last year. Washington State lawmakers are currently considering a law that would allow interstate marijuana trade in the meantime federal action.
The opposite side of the country, New Jersey’s Senate president submitted a similar proposal last ye, but it has yet to be enacted.
Despite the fact that legislations are laying the foundation for the future of cannabis, bans on the export and import of cannabis have been in place in legalized states across the U.S. in large part to protect the states from federal enforcement action. The Justice Department previously identified interstate marijuana traficking as a priority prosecutorial priority.
The plaintiffs in Oregon are seeking to remedy the situation by asking the court to declare Oregon’s export ban unconstitutional and to enjoin the State from “implementing, enforcement, or giving any effect” to the residency requirement for dispensaries.
Jefferson v. Kotek is the case (21-CV-1776). Check out the most recent filings:
Justice Department Declares That Ending the Gun Ban for Medical Marijuana Patients would Have ‘Wide Rangeing Consequences’ in New Federal Court Brief
Photo by Chris Wallis // Side Pocket Photos
The post Oregon Company defends Federal Lawsuit Challenging the State’s Ban On Cannabis Exports originally appeared on Marijuana Moment.
