This is just a glimpse. Want to receive every issue of Cannabis Wire Daily, our newsletter that is sent to subscribers each weekday morning? Subscribe today.
Back in May, as we reported in this newsletter, U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts Judge Mark Mastroianni heard arguments from lawyers representing Attorney General Merrick Garland and lawyers representing a group of cannabis companies that are suing the AG over the federal government’s approach to cannabis prohibition.
At the time, Garland had filed a motion to dismiss their complaint. And this week, Mastroianni ultimately sided with Garland.
The cannabis companies in the suit are Verano Holdings Corp, Canna Provisions, Gyasi Sellers, and Wiseacre Farm. They have argued that “Congress has no rational basis for prohibiting state-regulated intrastate marijuana,” in part because of its “inconsistent” approach to state-legal programs so far. And, they argue that intrastate enforcement causes “harms.” The AG has argued that the plaintiffs’ arguments have no standing, and that the federal government’s approach has in fact “avoided friction between the federal government and the states.”
Mastroianni did find some of the plaintiff’s arguments have merit. “In the absence of any dispute regarding redressability, the court finds Plaintiffs have demonstrated that they have standing under Article III to challenge the portions of the CSA applicable to intrastate activities related to marijuana,” he wrote. Further, “the court also finds Plaintiffs have shown there is a causal connection between their economic injuries and the CSA.”
However, he sided with the DOJ on the following:
On the Commerce Clause: “Given the scale of Plaintiffs’ operations, the court cannot find Congress lacks a rational basis for concluding Plaintiffs’ activities substantially affect interstate commerce without ignoring the Supreme Court’s broadly-worded holding in Raich,” he wrote. “Since only the Supreme Court can overrule Raich, this court concludes that Congress has authority under the Commerce Clause to regulate Plaintiffs’ wholly-intrastate, state-sanctioned marijuana activities and dismisses their as-applied challenge to the CSA.”
On due process: “Plaintiffs’ substantive due process challenge to the CSA is also dismissed for failure to state a claim. There is simply no precedent for concluding that Plaintiffs enjoy a fundamental right to cultivate, process, and distribute marijuana,” he wrote.
Ultimately, the plaintiffs are eyeing the Supreme Court, so this is only the beginning.
You can read Mastroianni’s order here.
