Cannabis Companies Secure Extension in Federal Prohibition Case

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Supreme Court has extended the deadline for a group of Cannabis businesses to file a petition seeking review of their case against the Justice Department, which aims to strike down the federal ban on Cannabis under the Controlled Substances Act.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson issued the order last Friday, moving the filing date from August 25 to October 24 and giving plaintiffs Canna Provisions, Gyasi Sellers, Wiseacre Farm, and Verano Holdings two more months to build their arguments.

The companies, backed by the law firm Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, maintain that enforcing the Controlled Substances Act against state-regulated Cannabis operations violates the Constitution, especially in places like Massachusetts where such activity occurs entirely within state borders. Their suit questions the validity of the 2005 Supreme Court decision in Gonzales v. Raich, which affirmed Congress’s power to regulate intrastate Cannabis under the Commerce Clause. Plaintiffs point to changes since then, including the Justice Department’s general reluctance to interfere in state-legal markets and protections for medical Cannabis in federal spending bills, as reasons to revisit that ruling.

The extension request, which the Office of the Solicitor General did not oppose, cited lead counsel David Boies’s commitments in other high-profile federal cases, the time required to gather amicus briefs from experts and state officials, and the intricate constitutional matters at stake. This follows a May ruling by the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that upheld a lower court’s dismissal of the lawsuit, reinforcing the Raich precedent despite the plaintiffs’ claims.

Analysts note that securing Supreme Court review demands votes from at least four justices, a threshold that remains unpredictable. Justice Clarence Thomas has previously highlighted inconsistencies in federal Cannabis policy, describing it in a 2021 opinion as a contradictory system that challenges federalism principles. Yet the Court’s conservative majority has shown mixed signals on commerce-related issues, making outcomes hard to forecast.

This legal push occurs as the Biden administration’s proposal to shift Cannabis to Schedule III under the Controlled Substances Act faces delays, with no final action yet despite public comment periods. During the election campaign, President Donald Trump voiced support for potential rescheduling, though his position has varied, and a related political action committee has begun advertising to press the issue. Bipartisan pressure for reform persists in Congress, but progress on bills like interstate commerce or banking access for Cannabis firms has been slow.

If the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case, it could clarify the limits of federal authority over state Cannabis programs, potentially restricting enforcement to cross-border activities. Such a shift would alleviate burdens like cash-only operations and tax restrictions under Internal Revenue Code section 280E, which hit state-legal businesses hard. However, a denial of review would leave the status quo in place, forcing the industry to rely on administrative or legislative fixes that have proven elusive.