The United States Department of Justice (DOJ) has officially filed a motion to dismiss a lawsuit challenging the government’s prohibition on marijuana.
Yesterday we reported that the DOJ filed documents with the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts declaring that it will be seeking to dismiss the lawsuit prior to the court-appointed deadline of January 23. Today, the day of the deadline, the DOJ officially filed the motion to dismiss. The motion was filed by Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Brigham J. Bowen, Assistant Director, Federal Programs Branch, and Jeremy S.B. Newman, a DOJ Trial Attorney, on behalf of Attorney General Merrick Garland.
“Defendant Merrick Garland, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the United States, hereby files this Motion to Dismiss Complaint”, states the filing. :As set forth in the accompanying Memorandum, the Complaint, ECF No. 1, filed by Plaintiffs Canna Provisions, Inc., Gyasi Sellers, Wiseacre Farm, Inc., and Verano Holdings Corp. (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), should be dismissed because Plaintiffs lack standing and because Plaintiffs fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Accordingly, the Court should grant this Motion and dismiss the Complaint.”
In the filing, the DOJ points out that the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is currently considering a request from the Department of Health and Human Services to reschedule marijuana.
“It is not for the courts to disrupt or get ahead of that administrative process,” says Garland, who points out that federal lawmakers have “set up an administrative process for rescheduling” marijuana.
The DOJ argues that the marijuana companies who filed the lawsuit didn’t have legal standing to do so, namely because they have not faced federal persecution or prosecution for operating state-legal marijuana businesses.
The lawsuit in question claims that continuing marijuana prohibition, in particular enforcing federal marijuana policy on states that have legalized the plant, is unconstitutional and harms public safety.
“What was once a single-minded federal crusade against the cannabis plant has been replaced with an ambivalent set of inconsistent policies, some aimed at reducing federal interference with state efforts to regulate marijuana,” says the lawsuit. “In short, the federal government has long ago abandoned the goal of eliminating marijuana from commerce. Nor does Congress have any comprehensive—or even consistent and rational—approach to marijuana regulation. This inconsistent, patchwork approach to marijuana regulation provides no basis for Congress to regulate intrastate marijuana.”
The lawsuit states that “prohibition is to the detriment of the states, their citizens, and Plaintiffs. Not only do Plaintiffs face the potential risk of enforcement, their businesses also face numerous hurdles that result directly from the CSA’s treatment of intrastate marijuana.”
Congressional Researchers say it’s “likely” marijuana will be moves to Schedule III, legalizing it nationwide for prescription use, by the end of 2024.
