This is just a glimpse. Want to receive every issue of Cannabis Wire Daily, our newsletter that is sent to subscribers each weekday morning, and unlimited access to cannabiswire.com?
Here’s what went down in the Garland vs cannabis companies hearing.
On Wednesday, lawyers representing Attorney General Merrick Garland on one side, and a group of cannabis entities in Massachusetts on the other, hashed out their arguments in court about the constitutionality of the federal government’s approach to cannabis prohibition.
The hearing, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, was focused on Garland’s motion to dismiss the complaint. Both sides presented their arguments to Judge Mark Mastroianni, sometimes addressing him directly for long stretches, and sometimes responding to each other.
David Boies, of the law firm Boies Schiller Flexner, highlighted his clients’ – Verano Holdings Corp, Canna Provisions, Gyasi Sellers, and Wiseacre Farm – main arguments. These cannabis companies wrote in their October complaint against Garland that the “intrastate” enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act “undermines state marijuana programs, harms businesses large and small, and threatens public safety,” and that “Congress has no rational basis for prohibiting state-regulated intrastate marijuana,” partly because of its “inconsistent” and hands-off approach to state-legal programs so far. One example they gave on “harms” is the reluctance of financial institutions to work with cannabis businesses.
Deputy Attorney General Jeremy Newman reiterated what was laid out in Garland’s January motion to dismiss: that the federal government hasn’t actually harmed cannabis companies because of federal prohibition. (If banks are afraid to work with cannabis businesses, for example, that’s between these companies and the banks.) He reiterated that there is “rationality” to the federal government’s current approach, which has “avoided friction between the federal government and the states,” and also allowed scientific evidence to “develop” and help inform government decisions on cannabis policy.
One theme that came up several times was the impact that rescheduling cannabis from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act, to Schedule III, would have for either side.
“The reclassification doesn’t stop the injury to my clients. It may help in terms of further permitting the de facto use of marijuana, but it doesn’t help the illegality issue that my clients are facing,” Boies said.
“But I don’t know that illegality turned into a credible threat of prosecution,” Newman shot back.
And while Newman agreed with Boies that rescheduling was a separate conversation, he did note that it would have “one significant concrete effect” for cannabis businesses by freeing them from the 280E tax code provision – which only applies to Schedule I and II substances – and allowing them to deduct common business-related expenses like any other company.
He also referenced banks.
“I think it’s quite possible that if it’s rescheduled, more banks and third parties will be willing to deal with them,” he said.
Georgia Republican pushes DEA Milgram about why she didn’t sign off on rescheduling.
Rep. Andrew Clyde, a George Republican, joined Rep. Ben Cline, a Virginia Republican, to send a letter to DEA Administrator Anne Milgram to express their “grave” concerns about Milgram’s “repeated refusal to respond” to scheduling questions during the DEA budget hearing on May 7.
“I’m demanding that DEA Administrator Milgram answer questions related to the Biden Administration’s recent marijuana reclassification—including why AG Garland broke precedent by signing the order rather than Milgram,” Clyde posted on X (formerly Twitter).
“Americans deserve transparency on this serious matter.”
+ More: in case you missed it, check out our coverage of the DOJ’s rescheduling announcement, and some of the unprecedented ways in which it has unfolded.
Texas, Tennessee support legalization.
Roughly 60% of Texas voters say that they support adult use cannabis legalization, according to a new poll published by The Texas Lyceum.
Notably, this is a whopping 14 point jump from the last time the question was asked to participants in 2015, “when a majority of voters (50%) expressed opposition.”
Also: More than 60% of Tennessee voters favor legalization, according to a new Vanderbilt University poll.
Tennessee doesn’t even have a robust medical cannabis program, so the support for adult use is notable.
+ More: Cannabis Wire had a Q&A with Sen. Raumesh Akbari about what it’s like to pitch legal cannabis in the legislature, where hurdles abound.
