While most attention has focused on the recently concluded marijuana rescheduling hearing, an equally significant legal battle has unfolded in the D.C. Circuit over the final rescheduling order ("Final Order"). Petitioners, the Department of Justice, newly intervening parties, and amici participants have exchanged a series of briefs over the past month. Those filings may ultimately
The hearing on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for the rescheduling of “marijuana” commenced on June 29, 2026 and will end tomorrow, July 15th. The Government brought two witnesses to the stand on the first day, and then seven prohibitionist organizations had the floor for the remaining seven days of the hearing. As I discussed
Until last week, federal law prohibited marijuana users from owning or possessing firearms, even in states where marijuana is legal. In recent years, we have covered the differing opinions by federal courts challenging this status quo. On June 18, 2026, the Supreme Court held in a 9-0 decision in U.S. v. Hemani that 18 U.S.C.
With just over two weeks until DEA’s expedited processing deadline for state legal operators to apply for DEA registration, several petitioners litigating the legality of the DEA’s final rule have filed a motion to stay DEA’s final rule in the D.C. Circuit (“Motion”). The Motion was brought by the National Drug and Alcohol Screening Association,
On May 22, the states of Nebraska, Indiana, and Louisiana filed a Petition for Review in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (“DC Circuit”) challenging the Acting Attorney General’s (“AG”) final agency action moving FDA-approved and state-licensed marijuana into Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (“CSA”). The DC
In the last year or two, we have seen a growing number of marijuana businesses take the position that IRC 280E no longer applies to them. Some of these businesses have taken that position in consultation with lawyers and CPAs. This shift in strategy predates Trump’s Executive Order of December 18, 2025, to reschedule marijuana
Cannabis law continues to live in constitutional limbo. States like Washington and California have built robust, tightly regulated cannabis markets, while federal law still treats marijuana as contraband. That tension has now collided head‑on with one of the Constitution’s most powerful doctrines: the Dormant Commerce Clause. Just recently, in January 2026, the Ninth Circuit weighed
On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in Canna Provisions, Inc. et al. v. Bondi, a high-profile lawsuit that challenged the constitutionality of the federal prohibition of intrastate (and not interstate) cannabis activity. The denial offered no reasoning; nor was it accompanied by dissents or concurrences from any of the justices—all of which is
Yesterday late afternoon, Oregon cannabis wholesaler Jefferson Packing House (JPH) filed another dormant commerce clause (DCC) challenge to protectionist state cannabis laws. You can view the complaint here. I say “another" DCC challenge because JPH prosecuted DCC litigation in late 2022; and also because several DCC cannabis lawsuits have been filed in recent years, with
The creative defense that failed A trademark infringement defendant argued it couldn't be sued in federal court because its cannabis business was engaged in illegal activity under federal law. This seemingly clever strategy fell flat in Colorado federal court, representing the latest decision in a growing trend of federal judges retaining cannabis-related litigation despite the
