Applicants in a closely watched marijuana case have filed for a 60-day extension to submit their petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, shifting the deadline from August 25, 2025, to October 24, 2025.
The case, brought by Canna Provisions, Gyasi Sellers, Wiseacre Farm, and Verano Holdings Corp., is led by prominent attorney David Boies and targets Congress’s authority to criminalize intrastate marijuana activity that takes place entirely within Massachusetts. Plaintiffs argue that marijuana cultivated, possessed, and sold strictly within state borders is not fungible with interstate marijuana and has even reduced interstate trafficking, putting it outside the scope of federal regulation under the Commerce Clause. The challenge seeks to revisit the Supreme Court’s 2005 decision in Gonzalez v. Raich, which upheld Congress’s power to ban marijuana even when it was grown and consumed solely within a state.
The request for more time cites Boies’s demanding case schedule, the significant constitutional questions at stake, and the need to accommodate numerous interested parties. Law professors, non-profits, and state governments are preparing to submit amicus briefs supporting the Court’s review, but they require additional time to finalize their arguments. The Solicitor General’s office confirmed it does not object to the extension.
The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the lawsuit in May, ruling against Massachusetts cannabis businesses and reaffirming the Raich precedent. Despite the setback, attorneys representing the plaintiffs, including Jonathan Schiller of Boies Schiller Flexner, signaled at the time that they would seek Supreme Court review. Boies has since argued that “the predicates of that decision no longer exist,” pointing to the dramatic shift in marijuana laws nationwide since 2005.
Although most justices have not spoken publicly on marijuana laws, Justice Clarence Thomas has previously questioned the federal government’s approach. In 2021, he wrote that the federal prohibition “may no longer be necessary or proper,” citing contradictions in enforcement and the widespread legalization movement at the state level. Legal observers note that if the Court takes up the case, the three liberal justices—Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson—are likely to align with Thomas in favor of scaling back prohibition. That means only one of the remaining five justices would need to agree to potentially end the federal ban.
The Court’s decision on whether to grant certiorari could have sweeping implications for the future of marijuana law in the United States. If taken up, the case would mark the first major marijuana-related Commerce Clause challenge to reach the Supreme Court in two decades.
More articles from The Marijuana Herald can be found below.
