On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in Canna Provisions, Inc. et al. v. Bondi, a high-profile lawsuit that challenged the constitutionality of intrastate (and not interstate) cannabis activity. The denial offered no reasoning; nor was it accompanied by dissents or concurrences from any of the justices—all of which is typical. The upshot is that petitioner’s loss at the First Circuit Court of Appeals is final. Rest in peace, Canna Provisions.
We have been tracking and writing about this case since it was filed two years ago. We acknowledged the pedigree of David Boies and the lawyers involved, but ultimately, the effort left us uninspired. See:
In the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s denial on Monday, my colleague Jason Adelstone also offered this post mortem on LinkedIn:
This outcome is unfortunate but unsurprising given the fundamentally flawed strategy used to challenge Gonzales v. Raich. There were far more credible avenues for advancing this argument, most notably through sympathetic medical patients, rather than corporate actors operating in the adult-use market. From the outset, this case was designed for Supreme Court review. What the strategy failed to adequately account for, however, is the composition and conservatism of the current Court. Maybe next time the industry will support a case that has an actual chance to prevail.
Whether there is a “next time,” or what that would look like, is an open question—particularly with rumors aswirl about a Trump executive order on rescheduling marijuana. If marijuana lands on Schedule III, cannabis businesses would ultimately get the fair tax treatment sought by Canna Provisions, although banking, SBA loans and other amenities would still be impaired.
It would be somewhat ironic if the Department of Justice ultimately followed a Trump directive to reschedule marijuana at this time, given its posture last month in the Canna Provisions litigation. I explained:
[T]he DOJ declined to file a Supreme Court brief in the Canna Provisions case . . . . The DOJ’s position is curious, given that 1) the case strikes at the heart of the federal government’s ability to enforce federal laws, and 2) the federal government has been keen to weigh in on Supreme Court cannabis litigation, in the context of gun rights. As it stands, the Court will now decide whether to hear this case without executive branch input.
And that’s exactly what happened. It’s now time for everyone to move on to the next thing, which we’re told could be an executive order on rescheduling, announced as soon as tomorrow. As I explained in a Canna Provisions critique:
[M]arijuana reform is squarely a job for Congress or the executive branch. Not the judiciary. We need Congress to act, especially in the context of stalled Schedule III proceedings, and we need broader reforms than what Canna Provisions seeks. Those reforms include not just interstate commerce, but decriminalization and ideally reparations of some sort.
Schedule III will not get us interstate commerce, and it certainly wouldn’t bring decriminalization or reparations. But it’s a step in the right direction—especially while Congress cannot get organized on cannabis reform, aside from hemp. I don’t expect that to change prior to the 2026 midterms, which means the best hope for now is an executive order. Canna Provisions, rest in peace.
Vince Sliwoski
Source link