A federal appeals court has dismissed a constitutional challenge to U.S. marijuana prohibition filed by a group of cannabis companies. The ruling, which was anticipated, paves the way for the plaintiffs to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, where they aim to overturn the federal ban on marijuana established under the Controlled Substances Act.
The plaintiffs, which include Chicago-based Verano Holdings and three cannabis businesses from Massachusetts, initiated their lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Justice in October 2023. They argue that the federal prohibition is unconstitutional, given the significant changes in state cannabis laws since the Supreme Court’s 2005 decision that upheld Congress’s authority to ban marijuana at the federal level. Currently, more than two dozen states have legalized adult-use cannabis.
Attorney Jonathan Schiller, representing the companies, confirmed their intention to seek a Supreme Court review after the appeals court’s decision. The case, which has drawn attention for its potential implications, is backed by the prominent law firm Boies Schiller, known for handling high-profile litigation, including cases at the Supreme Court.
The coalition of plaintiffs includes Canna Provisions, a cannabis retailer; Gyasi Sellers, CEO of the Treevit delivery service; and Wiseacre Farm, a cultivator. Their argument hinges on the assertion that the changing landscape of state laws regarding cannabis means that the basis for the Supreme Court’s 2005 ruling is no longer valid. They also referenced comments from Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, made in a 2021 case, suggesting that federal laws concerning marijuana might not be necessary.
During December oral arguments, Schiller emphasized that congressional actions since 2005, including provisions protecting medical marijuana businesses from federal prosecution, indicate that lawmakers no longer intend to enforce a ban on interstate cannabis commerce. Despite these claims, both the U.S. District Court and the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals have sided against the plaintiffs.
Chief Judge David Barron of the 1st Circuit rejected the arguments presented by the cannabis companies, stating that adult-use marijuana was not recognized at the time of the 2005 ruling. He further noted that there is no constitutional right to engage in an activity that is not protected by the Fifth Amendment, even if states have enacted laws to permit it.
As the case moves forward, the cannabis companies maintain their position that the changing attitudes toward marijuana use and legalization across the country necessitate a reevaluation of federal laws. The outcome of this appeal could have far-reaching effects on the cannabis industry and the future of marijuana legalization in the United States.
English 
Spanish 
German 
Czech