May 22 (Reuters) – A federal judge in Massachusetts expressed skepticism on Wednesday as a lawyer for several local cannabis businesses argued that the federal prohibition on marijuana is unconstitutional. The hearing, held in Springfield, saw renowned attorney David Boies urging U.S. District Judge Mark Mastroianni to challenge a Supreme Court precedent from 2005.
Boies acknowledged the boldness of his request, as he asked Judge Mastroianni to rule in a manner that might appear to contradict the Supreme Court’s decision. He argued that the context surrounding marijuana regulation has drastically evolved over the past two decades, with 38 states now legalizing the drug for medical or recreational use. Additionally, both the U.S. Justice Department and Congress have signaled a retreat from stringent enforcement.
“I think there can be no doubt that the predicates of that decision no longer exist,” Boies asserted, pointing out the diminished federal efforts to completely eliminate interstate marijuana commerce.
Judge Mastroianni, appointed by former President Barack Obama, challenged Boies’ reasoning, suggesting that any significant change to a Supreme Court ruling is a matter for the high court itself. “Even if I’m accepting everything you’re saying is true, it’s for the Supreme Court to change,” he remarked.
The hearing came on the heels of the Justice Department’s recent move to reclassify marijuana as a Schedule III drug, reflecting a shift in its stance on marijuana offenses. Despite this, marijuana remains federally restricted, prompting the lawsuit from Massachusetts retailer Canna Provisions, delivery business owner Gyasi Sellers, grower Wiseacre Farm, and multistate operator Verano Holdings. They argue that the federal Controlled Substances Act oversteps constitutional bounds by interfering with state-regulated marijuana activities.
The businesses’ argument hinges on the U.S. Constitution’s Commerce Clause, which grants the federal government the power to regulate interstate commerce. However, the Supreme Court’s 2005 decision in Gonzales v. Raich upheld federal authority to criminalize marijuana use, even in states permitting it for medical purposes.
“Frankly, I would submit that is the end of the ballgame,” said Justice Department attorney Jeremy Newman, urging the case’s dismissal.
Boies countered by referencing a 2021 statement from conservative Justice Clarence Thomas, who questioned the continued validity of the 2005 ruling and suggested the federal ban might no longer be necessary or proper.
The case, Canna Provisions Inc v. Garland, U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, No. 3:23-cv-30113, remains a focal point in the ongoing legal battles over marijuana regulation in the United States.
