A U.S. appeals court expressed skepticism on Thursday regarding a challenge to the federal marijuana ban, with judges suggesting they are unlikely to overturn the law despite shifting public and legal perspectives on cannabis use.
The case was brought before the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals by several Massachusetts cannabis businesses, including Canna Provisions, Wiseacre Farm, and multistate operator Verano Holdings, all of which argue that the federal prohibition on marijuana is unconstitutional. Their lawyer, renowned litigator David Boies, argued that significant changes in the legal landscape since the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2005 ruling upholding the ban — which found that Congress had the authority to criminalize marijuana under the Commerce Clause — should now prompt the court to reconsider the law.
“Today, 38 states, including Massachusetts, have legalized marijuana for medical or recreational use. This is a clear departure from the Supreme Court’s original reasoning,” Boies told the three-judge panel. “The federal government’s intent to eradicate marijuana has been abandoned.”
Despite Boies’ arguments, the judges appeared unconvinced. U.S. Circuit Judge Julie Rikelman, appointed by President Joe Biden, reiterated that Congress’s goal — to control the supply and demand of controlled substances — has not changed, even as state laws evolve.
“The fact that some states have legalized marijuana does not change Congress’s broader goal of regulating the substance,” Rikelman said, highlighting that the federal government continues to prioritize its authority to manage controlled substances nationwide.
This legal battle stems from a decision last year by U.S. District Judge Mark Mastroianni, who dismissed the challenge, emphasizing that only the Supreme Court could overturn its own precedent. In the 2005 ruling, Gonzales v. Raich, the high court held that the federal government, under its constitutional powers, could criminalize marijuana possession and use even in states where it was legalized for medical purposes.
The plaintiffs argue that the legal and political landscape has drastically changed since the Raich decision. For example, in 2021, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a statement suggesting that the federal marijuana ban may no longer be necessary or appropriate. Additionally, since 2014, Congress has prohibited the Department of Justice from interfering with state medical marijuana programs, and in 2010, it permitted medical marijuana use in the District of Columbia.
In April, the U.S. Department of Justice also moved to reclassify marijuana as a Schedule III drug, a step that would significantly reduce its legal penalties. A hearing on this rescheduling is set for mid-January.
However, Chief U.S. Circuit Judge David Barron questioned whether these changes in policy truly indicate that the federal government’s ban on marijuana is no longer needed. “Even with the carve-outs, the federal statute still bans marijuana sales,” Barron noted, suggesting that legislative changes alone may not be enough to invalidate the current federal law.
As the court reviews these arguments, the legal fate of marijuana’s federal prohibition remains uncertain. The challenge, while deeply rooted in recent developments, could ultimately set a critical precedent for the future of cannabis regulation in the U.S.
Read more: