US appeals court rejects challenge to federal marijuana ban
BOSTON, May 27 (Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court on Tuesday rejected arguments by several Massachusetts cannabis businesses that the federal prohibition on marijuana could no longer be deemed constitutional, as the U.S. Supreme Court held two decades ago.
The Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled, opens new tab that changes in how marijuana is regulated and sold in the decades since the Supreme Court upheld the law in 2005 did not mean the federal ban was no longer constitutional.
Lawyers for the cannabis businesses including prominent litigator David Boies had argued that Congress has abandoned its goal of controlling all marijuana in interstate commerce, which they said was a key predicate of the Supreme Court's holding.
In that case, Gonzales v. Raich, the high court held that under the U.S. Constitution's Commerce Clause, Congress had the authority to criminalize the possession and use of marijuana even in states that permit its use for medical purposes as it did in the Controlled Substances Act.
Today, 38 states, including Massachusetts, have legalized marijuana for medical or recreational use, and under the Rohrabacher-Farr Amendments that have been included in annual appropriation bills since 2014, the Justice Department may not spend funds to interfere with state medical marijuana laws.
Boies during arguments in December also pointed to Congress' decision in 2010 to permit medical marijuana in the District of Columbia.
But Chief U.S. Circuit Judge David Barron, writing for a three-judge panel, said that the so-called appropriations rider was of "limited scope" and did not apply to the cultivation and distribution of marijuana for non-medical purposes.
"After all, notwithstanding those appropriation riders, the CSA remains fully intact as to the regulation of the commercial activity involving marijuana for non-medical purposes, which is the activity in which the appellants, by their own account, are engaged," he wrote.
He said that a ruling for the plaintiffs would result in a nationwide exemption to the Controlled Substances Act's comprehensive drug regulatory regime that was far broader than the one the Supreme Court rejected in the 2005 case, which concerned only medicinal marijuana sales, not recreational uses.
Jonathan Schiller, a lawyer for the plaintiffs at Boies Schiller Flexner, said it "is fair to assume that we shall seek Supreme Court review."
The lawsuit was filed in 2023 by Massachusetts retailer Canna Provisions, marijuana delivery business owner Gyasi Sellers, grower Wiseacre Farm and publicly traded multistate operator Verano Holdings (VRNO.NLB), opens new tab.
U.S. District Judge Mark Mastroianni, an appointee of Democratic President Barack Obama, last year rejected their arguments, saying only the U.S. Supreme Court could overturn its 2005 ruling upholding the law.
The plaintiffs say that holding has been undercut by subsequent developments. In 2021, conservative Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that the 2005 ruling's reasoning may no longer apply and that the ban "may no longer be necessary or proper", in response to the court's decision not to hear a different case.
The Justice Department during the last year of Democratic President Joe Biden's tenure moved to make marijuana use a less serious federal crime by reclassifying it as a Schedule III drug instead of Schedule I, which is reserved for drugs with a high potential for abuse.
The fate of that proposal remains uncertain. Republican President Donald Trump's nominee to lead the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, Terry Cole, has declined to commit to rescheduling cannabis, saying only that he would "give the matter careful consideration."
The case is Canna Provisions Inc v Garland, 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 24-1628.
For the plaintiffs: David Boies and Jonathan Schiller of Boies Schiller Flexner
For the U.S.: Daniel Aguilar of the U.S. Department of Justice
Read more:
US appeals court skeptical of challenge to federal marijuana ban
Cannabis businesses lose court challenge to US marijuana ban
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
22 minutes ago
- Times
Wes Streeting: NHS can't afford assisted dying and MPs got it wrong
Act now to keep your subscription We've tried to contact you several times as we haven't been able to take payment. You must update your payment details via My Account or by clicking update payment details to keep your subscription.
Times
22 minutes ago
- Times
Trump's taking Maga fire over ‘forever wars', but the real battle awaits
'I'm the one that decides,' declared President Trump last week when asked by a reporter who gets to say what 'America First' really means. Faced with a backlash from parts of his base over the prospect of the US supporting Israel in military action in Iran, the president said his word is final — 'after all, I'm the one that developed America First' — adding that 'the term wasn't used until I came along'. In fact, the phrase dates back to the First World War when Woodrow Wilson used the slogan to appeal to voters who wanted America to stay out of the conflict. (They didn't get their wish.) The America First Committee was founded in 1940 to protest against US involvement in the Second World War, but gained notoriety after high-profile members such as the aviator Charles Lindbergh and the automotive tycoon Henry Ford led to a perception that it had antisemitic and pro-fascist sympathies. However, since Trump launched his first bid for president ten years ago, it has taken on a new meaning. 'He has driven the term back into usage,' says Julian Zelizer, the Princeton University historian and author of The Presidency of Donald J Trump: A First Historical Assessment. 'He has the most power to shape what it actually includes.' Now it represents a whole movement, extending from foreign policy to trade to immigration. No more forever wars. No more favours for other countries out of the goodness of Uncle Sam's heart. But in a week where parts of Trump's base came out and criticised the president directly, the question is being asked in Washington: is Trump still in control of the agenda — or is it the base that decides? There are certainly plenty of figures in Washington who have distinct views on what America First ought to mean in practice. Last week, the row over Iran has seen a US version of blue on blue: Maga on Maga. As the alt-right influencer Jack Posobiec put it: 'I'm just thankful the neocons are here to tell us who is REAL MAGA.' Trump has distanced himself from certain members of his cabinet, saying that his head of intelligence Tulsi Gabbard is 'wrong' on her intelligence assessment of Iran. But in his second term, Trump has had ultimate authority over his cabinet. Learning from the first term, he picked them for loyalty and deference. As a figure with close ties to the administration says: 'It's a football team. He's the manager, they're the players, they listen to the manager and that's all there is to it.' It is why the voices he needs to worry more about may be the ones on the outside. Enter the Maga-verse — the network of former advisers, informal advisers and influencers free to speak, exerting varying degrees of influence on the president. One figure close to the White House says: 'There are a bunch of people that we look to to see how things are landing.' Indeed, the administration last week reached out to key figures as they tried to control the narrative. There are different spheres of influence. Steve Bannon, Trump's former adviser, is widely regarded as the godfather of Maga. While he no longer has a place in the White House, he is seen as a temperature check on the movement by keeping the government in touch with the grassroots through his media and bringing up the next generation of Maga — several of whom have gone on to take jobs in the administration. 'Everybody just folds to whatever big corporate interest there is and this administration is only slightly different to that,' explains an insider. 'Steve keeps a check on it.' Bannon's War Room podcast regularly ranks among the top ten in the US, and has more than 200,000 followers on X. The former executive chairman of the alt-right news website Breitbart had lunch with the president last week — just before Trump's spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt announced a two-week window to make a decision on his next steps in Iran. Next, Tucker Carlson — the former Fox News host — who last week accused Trump of taking America on the wrong path. This led to Trump saying: 'I don't know what Tucker Carlson is saying. Let him go get a television network and say it so that people listen.' 'He's definitely relevant,' says one Maga figure. 'But it's a much younger, less-likely-to-vote demographic that he now appeals to. It's a much lower propensity voter. I don't think he would take that as an insult. He lives in a cabin in the woods in Maine.' After the barrage of words, Trump later said he shared a phone call with Carlson who apologised for going too far. Then there's Laura Loomer — the right-wing conspiracy theorist — who regularly leads the news in DC with her social media and investigations. A Republican insider says: 'She's probably the best opposition researcher in Republican politics nationwide and she's devastatingly destructive to people. Some people might walk around with their chest puffed out and go, 'Oh, I'm not scared of Laura Loomer.' They're all scared of Laura Loomer.' Last week, Loomer and Carlson have clashed on Iran, while Bannon warned against the US getting too embroiled in any conflict. The changing media landscape is giving these figures greater prominence. Matt Boyle, the Washington bureau chief at Breitbart, says: 'We live in impassioned times, especially in the podcast era and new media.' It's not gone unnoticed in Maga world that last week streaming overtook cable and broadcast as the most-watched form of TV in the US. Yet the base is insistent there is no civil war. 'We're not a monolith, we're not the left, they don't tolerate dissent, right?' says one Maga figure. 'One part of the coalition is holding the other part of the coalition accountable.' Boyle, who was recently spotted dining with both Bannon and the Democrat senator John Fetterman, says: 'I do think that when the president makes his decision that the movement is gonna fall in line very quickly. He is the leader of the America First movement. He built this movement.' Yet Trump has never been a perfect fit for some of the views within it. In 2016, he said of America First that he wanted to make decision-making more 'unpredictable'. 'We won't be isolationists — I don't want to go there because I don't believe in that,' Trump said. 'But we're not going to be ripped off any more by all of these countries.' The historian Victor Davis Hanson, of the Hoover Institution think tank at Stanford University, says: 'Trump is neither an isolationist nor an interventionist, but rather transactional. The media fails to grasp that, so it is confused why tough-guy Trump is hesitant to jump into Iran, or contrarily why a noninterventionist Trump would even consider using bunker busters against Iran. 'The common thread again is his perception of what benefits the US middle class — economically, militarily, politically and culturally.' But internal debates go beyond foreign affairs. The other main Maga priorities are bringing jobs back to the US — through tariffs — and cracking down on immigration. Tensions have bubbled on all of these: last week Trump exempted the farm and hospitality industries from the immigration raids, only for Maga activists to raise alarm. The president then changed it back. Raheem Kassam, who is a close ally of Bannon, a co-owner of the Butterworths restaurant in Washington — a Maga hotspot — and a former adviser to Nigel Farage, says: 'It's definitely become more complex and thoughtful and flexible. 'There's now a depth where you can't necessarily fit all of Maga policy on a banner held up at a rally. You used to be able to say it was 'build the wall', 'drain the swamp'. It's developed more, it's deeper, it's denser and that's kind of what the establishment is really upset about this time. It's like, 'Oh, these guys have actually developed an element of political sophistication.'' For now, most agree — at least publicly — that Trump is king. Yet privately what is making the base so jumpy is this idea that Trump is being forced by the deep state into the default establishment policy position. If it happens to Trump, what chance does his successor have? Hanson says: 'Trump decides — in the sense of le Maga état, c'est moi. Almost everyone who tried to redefine Maga or take on Trump has mostly lost rather than gained influence. 'The key question is whether Maga continues after 2029, given Trump's unique willingness to take on the left rhetorically and concretely in a way that far exceeds the Reagan revolution, and in truth, any prior Republican. Trump's bellicosity, volatility, and resilience — his willingness to win ugly rather than lose nobly — ensure him credibility and goodwill among the base that in turn allows him greater latitude and patience.' Or as a recent visitor to the White House puts it: 'A lot of them want a Maga ideology whereas Trump is happy with it just being about him.' Kassam adds: 'Trump does largely get to decide what America First means. But the point is, there's a whole movement behind it that will want to keep the America First agenda even after Trump.' The real fight to define America First is likely to come when Trump exits the stage.
Times
22 minutes ago
- Times
Agnes Wanjiru killing: soldier may be extradited as 20 troops come forward
Act now to keep your subscription We've tried to contact you several times as we haven't been able to take payment. You must update your payment details via My Account or by clicking update payment details to keep your subscription.
