A groundbreaking lawsuit challenges federal oversight of state cannabis markets: Insights with Josh Schiller

In a recent interview on Cultivated Live, Josh Schiller of Boies Schiller Flexner detailed a high-stakes lawsuit challenging the federal government’s authority to interfere with state-regulated cannabis markets. Representing a group of cannabis businesses, Schiller’s firm argues that the federal criminalization of cannabis and its regulatory overreach violate the Constitution’s Commerce Clause. The case, which could reshape the legal landscape for cannabis nationwide, is now heading to the appellate court in Massachusetts in a few weeks.

The case in context

The lawsuit hinges on the Commerce Clause, which grants the federal government limited power to regulate interstate commerce. Schiller referenced the 2005 Raich v. Gonzalez Supreme Court decision, which upheld federal authority over California’s medical cannabis market. However, he noted that the policy landscape has drastically shifted since then, with a majority of states now legalizing cannabis for medical or recreational use. The lawsuit argues that federal enforcement against intrastate cannabis businesses is no longer “necessary and proper,” given the evolving state policies and Congress’s tacit acknowledgment of cannabis markets.

Key legal arguments

Schiller highlighted several critical points of contention:

1. Evolving federal policy: The federal government’s approach to cannabis has softened, as evidenced by Congressional restrictions on DOJ funds to target state-legal medical cannabis operations.

2. Economic harm: Cannabis businesses face discriminatory taxation under Section 280E, lack access to traditional banking, and endure higher operating costs due to federal criminalization.

3. Public interest: The case underscores the necessity for states to retain control over their markets, protect licensees, and promote safe, regulated cannabis distribution.

The lawsuit has already garnered attention, with the district court acknowledging the merit of the plaintiffs’ arguments but deferring the ultimate decision to higher courts.

Potential impacts

If the case succeeds, it could pave the way for the removal of federal barriers to state cannabis markets, including access to banking, tax reform, and broader market normalization. Schiller also noted that this legal challenge complements federal efforts like rescheduling cannabis and the SAFE Banking Act.

The appellate court’s decision, expected early next year, may set the stage for a Supreme Court review. Should the case progress, it has the potential to redefine federal and state relationships in cannabis regulation, heralding a new era for the industry.

Be sure to subscribe to Cultivated Daily and follow us on LinkedIn and YouTube.

Editor’s note: This summary was put together using generative AI and checked by a human editor.