Appeals Court Rejects Arguments from Cannabis Companies Regarding Federal Laws

Image | adobe.stock/Natalia

On May 27, 2025, the First Circuit Court of Appeals published its opinion rejecting a challenge to cannabis prohibition at the federal level (1). A group of several cannabis companies, Canna Provisions, Inc., Gyasi Sellers, Wiseacre Farm, Inc., and Verano Holdings Corp., had challenged the prohibition as no longer constitutional, given the shifts in cannabis policy. However, the Court ruled that a 2005 ruling from the US Supreme Court still stands, and that the changes in cannabis sales and regulation since that ruling do not invalidate it (2).

The four cannabis companies, all operating in Massachusetts, had sued in October 2023 in a District Court (3). “In 2023, they sued the Attorney General of the United States,” the ruling from Chief Judge Barron began in the published opinion (1). “They claimed that the Controlled Substances Act ("CSA"), 21 U.S.C. § 801 et seq., ‘as applied to [their] intrastate cultivation, manufacture, possession, and distribution of marijuana pursuant to state law,’ exceeded Congress's powers under Article I of the United States Constitution and violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. They sought a declaratory judgment to that effect. They also sought an injunction prohibiting the enforcement of the CSA as to them, ‘in a manner that interferes with the intrastate cultivation, manufacture, possession, and distribution of marijuana, pursuant to state law.’ The District Court dismissed the appellants' claims for failing to state a claim on which relief could be granted. We affirm.”

At that time, Merrick B. Garland had been the Attorney General.

One of the arguments presented by the lawyer representing the cannabis companies, David Boies, had argued that Congress is no longer pursuing control of interstate cannabis commerce, as it once had, which had been stated as a key component of the ruling on the previous case (2). In the 2005 case, Gonzales v. Raich, the Supreme Court had ruled that the federal government, under the Constitution’s Commerce Clause, could still criminalize interstate cannabis even in states where medical use was allowed, similar to the Controlled Substances Act (2,3).

According to Reuters (2), Jonathan Schiller, another lawyer for the cannabis companies, stated, “is fair to assume that we shall seek Supreme Court review," after the recent ruling.

Previously, in response to the Supreme Court declining to hear a 2021 lawsuit brought by a medical cannabis dispensary, Justice Clarence Thomas had written a statement suggesting revisiting Gonzales v. Raich due to the federal government’s evolving approaches to cannabis regulation, which may not require intrastate regulation (3).

References

1. United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Canna Provisions, Inc. v. Bondi https://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/sites/ca1/files/opnfiles/24-1628P-01A.pdf (accessed June 2, 2025).
2. Raymond, N. US appeals court rejects challenge to federal marijuana ban https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-appeals-court-rejects-challenge-federal-marijuana-ban-2025-05-27/ (accessed June 2, 2025).
3. Huffman, Z. The Cannabis Fight Could Be Headed To Supreme Court https://www.forbes.com/sites/zackhuffman/2025/06/02/the-fight-for-cannabis-could-be-headed-to-supreme-court/ (accessed June 2, 2025).