A federal judge has ruled that oral arguments scheduled for May 22 in a landmark case, where multiple marijuana companies are challenging the U.S. prohibition on marijuana, can be publicly accessible.
In the case of CANNA PROVISIONS, Gyasi Sellers, Wiseacre Farm, Verano Holdings v. Attorney General Merrick Garland, the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts’s Western Division has scheduled oral arguments for May 22. Judge Mark G. Mastroianni has ruled that the hearing can be attended by the public and streamed online.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs requested public access, citing the case’s “questions of public concern.” They noted that members of the press have requested remote access to the hearing due to their inability to attend in person.
The coalition of marijuana businesses stated, “The case presents multiple constitutional questions and concerns matters of great importance both in the Commonwealth and nationwide. Oral argument will allow for a meaningful review of these issues.”
In January, the Justice Department sought to have the case dismissed, but the courts rejected the dismissal request.
The lawsuit 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.”
