An amicus brief filed today with the U.S. Supreme Court by the Pacific Legal Foundation argues the federal government has no constitutional authority to regulate or criminalize marijuana activity that takes place entirely within a single state.
The brief, submitted on behalf of Florida resident Michael Colosi and authored by attorneys with the Pacific Legal Foundation, asks the Court to grant review in a case that could redefine the relationship between state marijuana laws and federal prohibition. It arrives just weeks before the Supreme Court is scheduled to decide whether it will take up the petition from Canna Provisions, a Massachusetts marijuana company operating exclusively within state borders.
In the filing, Colosi argues that the federal government has stretched the Commerce Clause far beyond its original meaning, allowing Congress to regulate activities with no meaningful connection to interstate trade. The brief points to decades of growing tension between state-level legalization and the federal Controlled Substances Act, calling the current system a “constitutional mismatch” that leaves state-licensed businesses vulnerable. The authors contend that marijuana grown, sold, and consumed entirely within a legal state does not constitute interstate commerce and therefore falls outside Congress’s authority.
The brief also compares the Canna Provisions dispute to Colosi’s experience in Florida, where he was told he might owe nearly $200,000 in federal fees because a purely local bird species—the Florida scrub-jay—could someday nest on his property. The filing argues that situations like this show how broad readings of the Commerce Clause and Necessary and Proper Clause have allowed the federal government to regulate local matters far beyond its constitutional reach.
According to the filing, past Supreme Court decisions such as Gonzales v. Raich opened the door for federal regulators to police local conduct even when it has no direct commercial or interstate dimension. Colosi’s brief urges the Court to revisit that line of precedent, arguing that the Constitution never envisioned the Commerce Clause being used to justify nationwide criminal bans on local economic activity performed in compliance with state law.
With the justices expected to announce on December 15 whether they will hear the Canna Provisions case, the brief adds to a growing chorus of legal voices urging the Court to resolve the long-running conflict between state legalization and federal prohibition. It follows earlier filings supporting the petitioners’ argument that Congress cannot constitutionally forbid activities that never cross state lines.
If the Court agrees to take the case, it could mark the most consequential marijuana ruling in Supreme Court history, one with the potential to reshape the legal landscape for millions of consumers, thousands of businesses, and dozens of states that have already legalized marijuana in defiance of the federal ban.
The Pacific Legal Foundation is a nonprofit public-interest law firm that challenges government overreach and focuses on limiting federal power. Founded in 1973, it frequently brings constitutional cases before the Supreme Court, often involving property rights and the scope of the Commerce Clause.
The Pacific Legal Foundation’s amicus brief comes a day after the Cato Institute filed a brief in the same case.
More articles from The Marijuana Herald can be found below.
