The plaintiffs in the federal case that centered around interstate marijuana traffic have voluntarily dropped their lawsuit against Oregon. They did not provide any public explanation other than to say “big things will be coming very soon on this front.”
Jefferson Packing House is a state licensed cannabis wholesaler located in Medford. Kate Brown (D), and others challenged in November 2022 a state law which prohibits the export of marijuana across state borders. The company stated that while cross-border cannabis trade is illegal under federal law as well, its goal at the time was to invite Oregon officials and other stakeholders to join them to pursue reform.
In a letter sent to state officials at the time of the lawsuit, the company stated that “we recognize that marijuana remains illegal under federal laws and that this suit will not change that.” “However we believe that the State of Oregon is fully aligned to support its local marijuana industry and that Oregon laws should no longer prevent the export of cannabis to other states.”
Jefferson Packing House retracted its lawsuit in a single-sentence document filed this week with the court.
Andrew DeWeese, an attorney from Portland who represents the company, wrote: “Plaintiff Jefferson Packing House, LLC provides notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice of the matter above captioned.”
DeWeese, in response to Marijuana Moment’s questions, sent the following press release. The company “remains dedicated to leading the charge towards a national cannabis market.”
He said that the state prohibition of interstate cannabis commerce remains unconstitutional. “Today’s procedural action does not change anything.” “Big things are about to happen on this front.”
DeWeese didn’t immediately reply to a subsequent email.
Jefferson’s lawyers have asked for dismissal of the case in the past, claiming that Jefferson does not have standing. They wrote in a January filing that since federal law prohibits the exportation of cannabis products, “the company’s alleged injuries will not be addressed by the relief it is seeking.” Furthermore, they argue that the Dormant Commerce Clause doesn’t apply to the lawsuit as it describes it.
The state’s filing stated that “that doctrine prohibits states to treat interstate and intrastate trade differently.” “Here however, there is not interstate commerce that should be treated differently.”
In a response from Jefferson in March, the claimed that the federal Controlled Substances Act did not “eliminate” commerce in marijuana, any more than a criminal law ‘eliminates,’ the act or behavior it forbids.”
The company’s decision to drop the legal case is not entirely clear. law360 reported the move first. It may indicate that the company anticipates future developments that will allow interstate commerce. However, it is also possible that the company fears that a negative ruling could do more harm than good. The case could also become irrelevant if state laws are changed, such as removing the interstate commerce ban.
The federal rescheduling would permit some cross-border marijuana trade, at least for medications approved by FDA. But it is unlikely that a Schedule III designation would in and of itself allow state-legal cannabis companies to engage in broad interstate commerce.
Oregon already has a law– that Brown signed in 2019 –that allows the state to import and export cannabis across state borders, but only after the federal government legalizes it or the Justice Department implements a policy administratively allowing such commerce. Justice Department hasn’t indicated that a change in policy is imminent.
In fact, all three West Coast States have laws governing interstate commerce. Washington adopted a similar law to Oregon’s last May.
California also has a law governing cross-border cannabis, but the state attorney general can also initiate the implementation of that law regardless of federal considerations. In January last year, state regulatory asked Attorney General Rob Bonta to prepare this guidance.
Bonta’s Office, however, stated last month that the launch of interstate marijuana commerce could place California at “significant” risk of federal action.
A federal appellate court ruled in 2022 that Maine’s law prohibiting residents from owning medical cannabis businesses violated the Commerce Clause. Some experts think the same reasoning that invalidates the residency restrictions also applies to state-level prohibitions on marijuana exports and imports.
The thinking goes that preventing the import and export of medical cannabis among states who consent could be construed to be similarly protectionist and inconstitutional.
Both Republicans, and Democrats, have expressed an interest in rolling back some positions of Measure 110 in Oregon. This historic law decriminalized the possession of all drugs. Oregon’s secretary state claimed late last year that Measure 110 had improved treatment. However, critics argue that police should be able arrest and charge drug addicts in order to encourage them to seek treatment.
However, opponents of the rollback say that will only do more harm by recriminalizing drug use.
In a separate visit, over two dozen Oregon officials visited Portugal in the past year to examine Portugal’s health-focused approach to substance abuse disorders.
Below, you can read Jefferson Packing House’s voluntary dismissal from the interstate Cannabis commerce lawsuit:
Cory Booker bill would allow people to use marijuana in public housing without being evicted
Photo elements are courtesy of Rawpixel, and Philip Steffan.
The post Oregon Company withdrew Interstate Marijuana Trade Lawsuit and said ‘Big Things Are Coming Very Soon’ first appeared on Marijuana Moment.
