A federal judge in July ruled that lower courts must follow precedent unless the Supreme Court instructs otherwise.
The U.S. Department of Justice on Thursday urged a federal appeals court to uphold the nationwide ban on marijuana, arguing that Congress maintains broad authority to regulate cannabis despite its legalization in many states, according to Law360.
In a brief filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, government lawyers defended the Controlled Substances Act against a challenge from several cannabis companies seeking to overturn the regulatory tool.
“Congress was acting well within its authority to ‘make all laws which shall be necessary and proper’ to ‘regulate Commerce … among the several States,’” the Justice Department argued, citing Supreme Court precedent.
The case, led by Massachusetts retailer Canna Provisions Inc. and backed by the likes of Verano Holdings (Cboe CA: VRNO) (OTCQX: VRNOF), aims to revive a lawsuit dismissed by a lower court in July. U.S. District Judge Mark Mastroianni ruled then that only the Supreme Court could overturn its 2005 decision in Gonzales v. Raich, which upheld federal marijuana prohibition.
The plaintiffs, represented by attorney David Boies, contend federal prohibition is no longer justified given widespread state-level legalization. They argued that changes in federal policy and enforcement priorities have undermined the rationale for blanket prohibition upheld in Raich.
“The ground-shaking shifts in marijuana regulation … together with the nation’s long history of marijuana cultivation and use prior to the CSA, demonstrate the widely held understanding that Plaintiffs’ marijuana activities implicate a liberty interest that requires protection,” the companies argued in a March court filing.
However, the Justice Department maintained that state laws don’t diminish federal power.
“Plaintiffs repeatedly note that many states have legalized medical and recreational marijuana, but Raich squarely held that state legalization of a controlled substance ‘cannot retroactively divest Congress of its authority under the Commerce Clause,’” according to a brief in the latest round.
Government lawyers argued that lower courts must follow this precedent unless the Supreme Court instructs otherwise.
The department also rejected the plaintiffs’ claim of a constitutional right to grow and sell marijuana, calling it a “novel position” lacking legal support.
The case comes as the Biden administration considers rescheduling marijuana under federal law. In May, the Justice Department proposed moving cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III, potentially easing some restrictions while maintaining federal oversight. If implemented, the change could open the door for regulated medical use and research, though recreational use could remain prohibited without further legislative action.
However, Thursday’s brief stressed that even if rescheduled, marijuana would still be subject to various federal controls. The government argued the plaintiffs’ position could undermine regulation of cannabis as a Schedule III substance as well.
The cannabis companies argued that the federal government has effectively abandoned its goal of eradicating all marijuana use, as evidenced by appropriations riders preventing federal interference with state medical marijuana programs. They contend that such policy shifts, along with widespread state legalization, have rendered the Raich decision obsolete.
While various marijuana reform bills have been introduced in Congress, comprehensive legislation to address the state-federal conflict has yet to gain traction. Some lawmakers have argued that legislative action, rather than court rulings, is needed to resolve the issue.
H/T: www.greenmarketreport.com
